Guild Renown Changes

[~Kaang]

Instead decay should be applied at each drop based on level. One simple example of a formula would be:

[Renown]*[Guild Bonus]*Decay Multiplier + bonus (from elixirs or bonus days)



I guess I would not object to this so long as the decay factor is always > zero & does not include any guild size factor in its calculation, and the small guild bonus is not changed greatly from what it is today. This would increase the decay for large guilds a little bit but not greatly so. It is certainly better than any plan that brings back decay based on guild account size.

[TheNewSlarden]

Currently renown is computed on a variable basis and decay is computed on a fixed daily basis. The system is obviously unfair to tiny guilds and hugely favorable for large guilds.

The problem with the old and the new system is that decay and renown are computed with different methodologies. Decay should be applied on a per drop basis rather than daily The daily decay methodology causes guilds to lose progress and is also exceptionally punitive to guilds that accept players that are either slow or don't play much.

Instead decay should be applied at each drop based on level. One simple example of a formula would be:

[Renown]*[Guild Bonus]*Decay Multiplier + bonus (from elixirs or bonus days)

The decay multiplier could be something as as simple as (110 - Level)/100 with this only applying to guilds level 30 or above.

This does two things:

1) it allows all guilds to move forward
2) it rationalizes the guild bonus multiplier. Currently small guilds with high activity levels benefit greatly from the bonus while those with lower activity levels benefit less. This smooths the curve so that guild bonus doesn't give highly active guilds an enormous benefit - decay is variable based only on level
3) it provides more incentive to buy elixirs since guilds can't move backwards and the bonus would be based on actual renown drop before decay multiplier. This means that even someone in a large high level guild buying an elixir would make a significant impact as their total renown earned would go up significantly. Also it removes the disincentive to buy elixirs caused by the fact that even with an exlixir your guild can move back. Elixirs will always increase guild renown and never result in a situation where all that benefit is erased due to fixed decay.

I am sure large guilds won't like this after the system was tilted dramatically in their favor. They won't like any change at this point, but it's a much more fair system than we have now and it doesn't give any incentive to boot since each member at only positive renown. It is not possible for a person to cause a guild to move backwards by slow play or lack of playing.

This would be a very welcome change, but don't get your hopes up. It's unlikely the devs will read/acknowledge your post. Even more unlikely they will consider it. Even more unlikely they will actually implement. And even more unlikely that they care even a little bit about how bad the current guild system is for new guilds and tiny guilds.

NWO is a good game with it's pluses and minuses just like DDO, however, the guild system works much better for new players and players that prefer to be in small guilds. It's ftp if you want to give it a try. Some of my guildies have switched to NWO as their main game in large part due to the guild system, including our guild leader. I held out hope for several months, but I've given up at this point. The developer comments clearly demonstrate apathy towards the tiny guild and start-up guild viewpoint.

I would suggest either living with the system or finding another game if the guild system is an important part of your gaming experience.

[smatt]

Just checking in haven't been paying attention for a while..... They need to keep the guild renown system set to REWARD active players.... If they want to just give away the ships and ammenities to the masses... Then they should just give the biggest ships away to everybody, as well a level 100... I mean why shouldnt' the small guilds with 4 players that play 2 hours a week, have exactly the same things as the big guilds that have people that play an average of 15-25 hours a week?

[TheNewSlarden]

Just checking in haven't been paying attention for a while..... They need to keep the guild renown system set to REWARD active players.... If they want to just give away the ships and ammenities to the masses... Then they should just give the biggest ships away to everybody, as well a level 100... I mean why shouldnt' the small guilds with 4 players that play 2 hours a week, have exactly the same things as the big guilds that have people that play an average of 15-25 hours a week?


As pointed out by someone else, the current system fails because activity is variable but decay is fixed. So it can't work because only tiny guilds with excessive play time can advance at higher levels. I like the proposal to make decay variable based on drops which solves all the problems that have been mentioned in these posts.

I think it's fine to reward activity, but Turbine should keep in mind that this is going to discourage new players that want to start their own guilds. They will lose their players to other guilds that have better shiops which is only going to cost the game more players.

Decay should have been eliminated completely because all it does is cost DDO players.

[Nestroy]

As pointed out by someone else, the current system fails because activity is variable but decay is fixed. So it can't work because only tiny guilds with excessive play time can advance at higher levels. I like the proposal to make decay variable based on drops which solves all the problems that have been mentioned in these posts.

I think it's fine to reward activity, but Turbine should keep in mind that this is going to discourage new players that want to start their own guilds. They will lose their players to other guilds that have better shiops which is only going to cost the game more players.

Decay should have been eliminated completely because all it does is cost DDO players.

Well, most players I talked with that left our guild did leave because they will leave DDO all together. We lost several guildies to larger guilds when they started to actively recruit again but now most that leave do so to leave for better games. And the guild system actually is one of the reasons (less f2p-content and too much grind the other two most common reasons).

[UurlockYgmeov]

Well, most players I talked with that left our guild did leave because they will leave DDO all together. We lost several guildies to larger guilds when they started to actively recruit again but now most that leave do so to leave for better games. And the guild system actually is one of the reasons (less f2p-content and too much grind the other two most common reasons).

Was talking to guildies yesterday about this. We are trying to get a friend / guildie his completionist before he deploys back to the sandbox for his third tour next month.

Topic was ways to improve the guild system - and he used to play LOTRO allot; what we agreed upon was that DDO just copied the kinship system, and failed to implement 95% of it and failed to make it fully useful.

Not only do we need to fix decay to make it fair to all; we also need to make the guild system much more useful and robust.

I still want a house. :D

[Nestroy]

(...)I still want a house. :D

Being an UO Player from 1st Minute myself, I can fully understand your wish, really. Alas, whilst the world of UO was really big there would not be enough space in Stormreach to house all the guild houses... ;)

[Chacka-1]

First of all I am sorry I did not read this Thread at all its just to much for me at the moment.
Even though I think I have enough information to just drop a suggestion.
I think the initial design of guild renown decay was almost perfect and I am not exaggerating here …
its just the Problem of people feeling forced to kick players from etc and that's indeed NOT good …
But why not solving this problem this way:
A player or/and the guild leader could set a player on inactive. He would be in the guild with name etc but can not be harmful to the decay status and also not be beneficial. (they dont see any renown tokens in there chests)
Maybe a idea to simple and also already someone else write it here?

[Nestroy]

First of all I am sorry I did not read this Thread at all its just to much for me at the moment.
Even though I think I have enough information to just drop a suggestion.
I think the initial design of guild renown decay was almost perfect and I am not exaggerating here …
its just the Problem of people feeling forced to kick players from etc and that's indeed NOT good …
But why not solving this problem this way:
A player or/and the guild leader could set a player on inactive. He would be in the guild with name etc but can not be harmful to the decay status and also not be beneficial. (they dont see any renown tokens in there chests)
Maybe a idea to simple and also already someone else write it here?

This already has been proposed several times, in the original rants from our large guildies as well as in this thread here. If Turbine only gave a dime for the Players and their wishes, this already would have been implemented by now.

Well, nice try and still a good idea, possibility to ever see this getting done: 0%.

[~Kaang]

First of all I am sorry I did not read this Thread at all its just to much for me at the moment.
Even though I think I have enough information to just drop a suggestion.
I think the initial design of guild renown decay was almost perfect and I am not exaggerating here …
its just the Problem of people feeling forced to kick players from etc and that's indeed NOT good …
But why not solving this problem this way:
A player or/and the guild leader could set a player on inactive. He would be in the guild with name etc but can not be harmful to the decay status and also not be beneficial. (they dont see any renown tokens in there chests)
Maybe a idea to simple and also already someone else write it here?


This is probably the most common suggestion made, after eliminating decay. There are a few problems with it. The administrative overhead for this would be prohibitive for very large guilds. Imagine trying to keep track of 1000 characters and trying to determine which ones should be what status with ZERO tools to tell you which ones earn how much renown. Guild leaders would find it far easier to just keep on shunning casual/social players and not even bother trying keep track of which ones should have what status flag. The other reason this is not a great solution is the exact same thing could be accomplished far more easily and far more accurately by having the game insure (mathematically) that no account can ever lose more renown to decay than that same account earns. This would free guild leaders from having to ever worry about a new player costing his/her guild renown and there would be no need to worry about getting any status flag set right. The proposal by Uacceptable, a few posts back, also accomplishes the same things.

[Aliss7]

If you don't allow for guild levels to drop, then you need to get rid of the guild cap and make it infinite, else you've lost one the existing metrics: guild activity.

[TheNewSlarden]

If you don't allow for guild levels to drop, then you need to get rid of the guild cap and make it infinite, else you've lost one the existing metrics: guild activity.

The activity metric was eliminated in October. It's currently easy for large guilds to advance regardless of activity level and very difficult for small guilds to advance regardless of activity level. Activity level is not nearly as relevant as guild size under the current system.

Before they make any changes to the guild cap, they need to first fix the system so it works for all guild sizes. The current system is severely broken.

[Gremmlynn]

First of all I am sorry I did not read this Thread at all its just to much for me at the moment.
Even though I think I have enough information to just drop a suggestion.
I think the initial design of guild renown decay was almost perfect and I am not exaggerating here …
its just the Problem of people feeling forced to kick players from etc and that's indeed NOT good …
But why not solving this problem this way:
A player or/and the guild leader could set a player on inactive. He would be in the guild with name etc but can not be harmful to the decay status and also not be beneficial. (they dont see any renown tokens in there chests)
Maybe a idea to simple and also already someone else write it here?This causes a problem with "inactive" guildies feeling they have a second class status.

No, the original system was far from perfect as renown was a constant. While game activity is a variable even for most players, much less between multiple players.

[Gremmlynn]

The activity metric was eliminated in October. It's currently easy for large guilds to advance regardless of activity level and very difficult for small guilds to advance regardless of activity level. Activity level is not nearly as relevant as guild size under the current system.

Before they make any changes to the guild cap, they need to first fix the system so it works for all guild sizes. The current system is severely broken.Not exactly true. Activity level is still the the core flaw in the system, it's just easier for larger guilds to reach the decay threshold with less active players.

Very active guilds are having little problem beating decay currently, regardless of size.

IMO, trying to rate players based on how much they play was a mistake to begin with. All that ends up doing is turning the majority of the games customer base into comparative losers, especially at the levels that were originally set. Generally, not a good way to maintain customers.

[unacceptable]

Not exactly true. Activity level is still the the core flaw in the system, it's just easier for larger guilds to reach the decay threshold with less active players.

Very active guilds are having little problem beating decay currently, regardless of size.

IMO, trying to rate players based on how much they play was a mistake to begin with. All that ends up doing is turning the majority of the games customer base into comparative losers, especially at the levels that were originally set. Generally, not a good way to maintain customers.

There is no such thing as a very active large guild. When large guilds had the same decay methodology tiny guilds have today, very few large guilds could advance past 80 and very few tiny guilds could advance past 80. With the change, very few tiny guilds can advance past 80 and all large established guilds can advance past 80. New guilds which are formed mostly by new players are doomed from the start regardless of how much they grow temporarily because once a player gets a decent amount of experience they will be recruited to a more established guild - leaving the new guilds to flounder. It seems like such a wrong decision for DDO to make - they should be trying to encourage all guilds. This game seems intent on discouraging new players from sticking with this game.

The system is really bad because static decay hits daily but renown is only earned by drops. I still believe decay should be applied as part of the guild renown dropping system so that it's proportional to activity. Then you have a true measure of activity unlike the system we have today that prevents most guilds from advancing once they reach a high enough level. It's really hard for me to understand how any game could come up with the system we have in place today.

[Gremmlynn]

There is no such thing as a very active large guild. When large guilds had the same decay methodology tiny guilds have today, very few large guilds could advance past 80 and very few tiny guilds could advance past 80. With the change, very few tiny guilds can advance past 80 and all large established guilds can advance past 80. New guilds which are formed mostly by new players are doomed from the start regardless of how much they grow temporarily because once a player gets a decent amount of experience they will be recruited to a more established guild - leaving the new guilds to flounder. It seems like such a wrong decision for DDO to make - they should be trying to encourage all guilds. This game seems intent on discouraging new players from sticking with this game.

The system is really bad because static decay hits daily but renown is only earned by drops. I still believe decay should be applied as part of the guild renown dropping system so that it's proportional to activity. Then you have a true measure of activity unlike the system we have today that prevents most guilds from advancing once they reach a high enough level. It's really hard for me to understand how any game could come up with the system we have in place today.I'll agree that there is really no such thing as a very active large guild, but large guilds can and do sometimes have a very active element in them. Those are likely the one's that are advancing the fastest now that they are no longer being held back by the less active players. As far as tiny guilds not being able to advance, I disagree. Those with a very active element, aided by size bonus, should be advancing. As far as new guilds not having a chance, if their members like being in that guild enough, they shouldn't have trouble retaining them. If not, why should the system be set up to force those members to stay?

As far as decay goes. I still think it should do just that...go and never come back.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I stand by my proposal.

I also say the entire guild system just needs to be finished. This partial kludge of a system is just bad.

LOTRO they have guild messaging; benefits earned by guild age; and so many other things.

SOON™ish

[Gremmlynn]

I stand by my proposal.

I also say the entire guild system just needs to be finished. This partial kludge of a system is just bad.

LOTRO they have guild messaging; benefits earned by guild age; and so many other things.

SOON™ishSoonish as they find a way to monetize those things.

[TheNewSlarden]

I'll agree that there is really no such thing as a very active large guild, but large guilds can and do sometimes have a very active element in them. Those are likely the one's that are advancing the fastest now that they are no longer being held back by the less active players. As far as tiny guilds not being able to advance, I disagree. Those with a very active element, aided by size bonus, should be advancing. As far as new guilds not having a chance, if their members like being in that guild enough, they shouldn't have trouble retaining them. If not, why should the system be set up to force those members to stay?

As far as decay goes. I still think it should do just that...go and never come back.

Your assertion about small guild advancement is an epic fail.

A 10 person level 81 guild that earned 500 renown per day per member would earn 17,000 renown per day with the bonus. That guild would lose 8,509 decay for the day. A 400 person level 81 guild that earned 500 renown per day per member would earn 200,000 renown for the day and end up with a net gain of 174,490.8 for the day. This is precisely why small guilds that were stuck before the change are still stuck, and large guilds that were stuck before the change have gained as much as 30 levels. And the guild that gained 30 levels has 400 members. The huge renown earning potential they have with the low decay/player makes advancement easy.

Now consider my small 10 person guild has only a few people that log in per day since people have jobs, kids, wives, girlfriends, etc., the daily requirement for those that log in is much higher. We had one go inactive a few days ago bringing our active guild size back to 9.

If the 400 person guild earned 20% of the small guild (20% as active) they would still gain net renown for the day while the tiny guild that is 500% more active moves back.

The only guilds that can advance at very high levels are guilds that are mostly hardcore players and very selective. Guilds like mine that don't boot players and take casual players can't advance even if some of the members are very active.

I agree with the previous idea about start-up guilds. They can't keep players because any good players are wanted by the high level guilds. Casual and new players are wanted by a tiny percentage of guilds. The only guilds that can freely take on new players are large and well established. Even so, most of those guilds don't take on new or casual players because they prefer vets.

The current system is driving away players just as the previous system did. It's time to make the system a positive for all guilds instead of a negative for the game that costs Turbine players.

[Dandonk]

The current system is driving away players just as the previous system did. It's time to make the system a positive for all guilds instead of a negative for the game that costs Turbine players.

I totally agree. But it seems small guilds just don't count at Trbine. They don't like us, and they don't want us. Well, that's nice, I guess, since they are driving small guilds out. Lucky Turbine!

I think it's sad to have a system that penalizes a social grouping choice. It was bad before when large guilds felt compelled to downsize or not advance. That problem has been solved, and I'm glad it has. Now I just want the same courtesy extended to small guilds. Please, Turbine, get rid of this obnoxious decay mechanic. It only serves to annoy and penalize players atm... I literally see no point in it now that large guilds are reaching the highest level with no problems.

[Gremmlynn]

Your assertion about small guild advancement is an epic fail.

A 10 person level 81 guild that earned 500 renown per day per member would earn 17,000 renown per day with the bonus. That guild would lose 8,509 decay for the day. A 400 person level 81 guild that earned 500 renown per day per member would earn 200,000 renown for the day and end up with a net gain of 174,490.8 for the day. This is precisely why small guilds that were stuck before the change are still stuck, and large guilds that were stuck before the change have gained as much as 30 levels. And the guild that gained 30 levels has 400 members. The huge renown earning potential they have with the low decay/player makes advancement easy.

Now consider my small 10 person guild has only a few people that log in per day since people have jobs, kids, wives, girlfriends, etc., the daily requirement for those that log in is much higher. We had one go inactive a few days ago bringing our active guild size back to 9.

If the 400 person guild earned 20% of the small guild (20% as active) they would still gain net renown for the day while the tiny guild that is 500% more active moves back.

The only guilds that can advance at very high levels are guilds that are mostly hardcore players and very selective. Guilds like mine that don't boot players and take casual players can't advance even if some of the members are very active.

I agree with the previous idea about start-up guilds. They can't keep players because any good players are wanted by the high level guilds. Casual and new players are wanted by a tiny percentage of guilds. The only guilds that can freely take on new players are large and well established. Even so, most of those guilds don't take on new or casual players because they prefer vets.

The current system is driving away players just as the previous system did. It's time to make the system a positive for all guilds instead of a negative for the game that costs Turbine players.It seems to me both guilds would be gaining. Any guild making more than they lose is advancing.


Also a 400 player guild is much more likely to be earning 5 renown/day/player than 500 after considering that 200 of those members are likely on the slow road to inactivity due to the fact they no longer play, 150 of them play occasionally, 30 play rather casually and the remaining 20 cover the lions share of the renown the guild earns. While the small guild likely contains 10 generally active players or they never likely would have met to form up in the first place. IMO, the main reason players form large guilds is to make the minority that are actually playing at any one time a viable number of players.

[Dandonk]

It seems to me both guilds would be gaining. Any guild making more than they lose is advancing.

No. The 10 person guild earns 17k renown, but loses 25.5k due to decay. Net loss per day: 8.5k.
The 400 person guild earns 200k renown, a net gain of 174.5k per day.

As long as the 400 person guild earns more than 8.5% of what the 10-person guild does, averaged oved the members, they'll come out ahead. Or to put it another way: The 10-person guild has to pull nearly 12 times as much renown (before small guild bonus) to make as much renown as the large guild.

Now, I wouldn't really mind this part as much, except that I can actually LOSE progress in guild levels.

[Aliss7]

Since myddo is borked and I have no way of getting this info anymore (easily), here's the renown data I've been collecting of my guild for the past ~187 days. It's a small/casual guild. Active accounts is currently 8 I believe; in the past it's been higher, but the trend is a small bump then accounts go inactive.

http://i.imgur.com/w2aztBZ.png

http://i.imgur.com/mKbKNSt.png

median renown per day: 7739
average renown per day: 11184

[Tshober]

Not exactly true. Activity level is still the the core flaw in the system, it's just easier for larger guilds to reach the decay threshold with less active players.

Very active guilds are having little problem beating decay currently, regardless of size.

IMO, trying to rate players based on how much they play was a mistake to begin with. All that ends up doing is turning the majority of the games customer base into comparative losers, especially at the levels that were originally set. Generally, not a good way to maintain customers.

Exactly. Rating players on how often they play is pretty silly and should never have been implemented in the first place. But, unfortunately, it was implemented and because it was we are still suffering from it. Large guilds are more easily able to overcome it now. Small guilds should also get decay relief. Ideally, decay should be eliminated entirely.

[TheNewSlarden]

It seems to me both guilds would be gaining. Any guild making more than they lose is advancing.


Also a 400 player guild is much more likely to be earning 5 renown/day/player than 500 after considering that 200 of those members are likely on the slow road to inactivity due to the fact they no longer play, 150 of them play occasionally, 30 play rather casually and the remaining 20 cover the lions share of the renown the guild earns. While the small guild likely contains 10 generally active players or they never likely would have met to form up in the first place. IMO, the main reason players form large guilds is to make the minority that are actually playing at any one time a viable number of players.

It would be great if both guilds advanced, but instead the tiny guild moves backwards and the large guild moves forward very fast due to the broken system currently in place.

Your assertion that large guilds earn less decay/player is not backed up by any facts or data. There is no reason to believe that activity level has to do with guild size. In fact, before the change even though there was a tiny percentage of small guilds at high levels, the typical large guild was a higher level than the typical small guild.

You are using bath based on false numbers because you are assuming small guilds have more active members. If that was the case DDO should be discouraging large guilds and encouraging small guilds since it causes them to be more active. But it's not true, activity level and guild size are unrelated variable.

Large guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. Small guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. It's simply a grouping preference and DDO should not apply a penalty harshly solely because of a grouping preference. It will only continue to drive more people away from the game.

[TheNewSlarden]

Since myddo is borked and I have no way of getting this info anymore (easily), here's the renown data I've been collecting of my guild for the past ~187 days. It's a small/casual guild. Active accounts is currently 8 I believe; in the past it's been higher, but the trend is a small bump then accounts go inactive.

median renown per day: 7739
average renown per day: 11184

Thank you for sharing this. This means your guild will start to stall in the 60s and stop advancing completely by level 70. I think Neverwinter got it right when they decided not to include a penalty mechanic that punishes guilds in this fashion.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Thank you for sharing this. This means your guild will start to stall in the 60s and stop advancing completely by level 70. I think Neverwinter got it right when they decided not to include a penalty mechanic that punishes guilds in this fashion.



60
4,536


61
6,355


62
6,673


63
7,001


64
7,340


65
7,690


66
9,056


67
9,474


68
9,905


69
10,348


70
10,805


71
12,527


72
13,064


73
13,616


74
14,183


75
14,766


76
16,901



Agree...... system is as borked as last system. BOHICA.

Time to fix it. enough data has been collected.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wq_Wi_JDU4U/UIhKFnEffnI/AAAAAAAAHks/5LfJwi9uCs4/s1600/BOHICA.jpg

[Asanarama]

There should be no such thing as guild renown. A guild should consist only of a chat channel and a shared bank, both controlled by a reasonable system of leadership. Ideally, people join a guild because they get along with each other and tend to be online at the same times so they can play together. That's what makes a guild fun, but it's not easy to achieve. Adding other factors only makes it harder. If you want the significant advantages available only to members of high-level guilds, you have to almost entirely give up on what makes a guild fun. The number of members needed to increase a guild's level at a reasonable rate almost guarantees that people won't get along.

[Tshober]

There should be no such thing as guild renown. A guild should consist only of a chat channel and a shared bank, both controlled by a reasonable system of leadership. Ideally, people join a guild because they get along with each other and tend to be online at the same times so they can play together. That's what makes a guild fun, but it's not easy to achieve. Adding other factors only makes it harder. If you want the significant advantages available only to members of high-level guilds, you have to almost entirely give up on what makes a guild fun. The number of members needed to increase a guild's level at a reasonable rate almost guarantees that people won't get along.

Everyone wants different things from a guild. The guild you describe would be a very poor guild to me. The very first thing I would say upon joining such a guild is "when will we get some more members?" It sounds like you just want a small friends list and a private chat channel. That might be ok for some but others want more. Like the ability to organize guild raids regularly or a guild meeting hall where they can meet and RP or a guild chat channel that actually has a lot of people on it chatting. I don't disagree that having renown and levels for guilds might be optional but please don't assume that your view of what is a good guild is the same view of what is a good guild for everyone.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Everyone wants different things from a guild. The guild you describe would be a very poor guild to me. The very first thing I would say upon joining such a guild is "when will we get some more members?" It sounds like you just want a small friends list and a private chat channel. That might be ok for some but others want more. Like the ability to organize guild raids regularly or a guild meeting hall where they can meet and RP or a guild chat channel that actually has a lot of people on it chatting. I don't disagree that having renown and levels for guilds might be optional but please don't assume that your view of what is a good guild is the same view of what is a good guild for everyone.

Agree. Everyone wants something different and the guild system should support them all.

[UurlockYgmeov]

http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Guild

for crying out loud.... this is 1000x better than what we have already. facepalm *groan*

[Arnez]

IKnowRite?!?!?

Just wait until they bring in Guild Halls or (gasp) Guild SKYSHIPS.


Here is some free advice Turbine: Remove Guild Decay. It may (yet) not be too late.

[Nestroy]

http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Guild

for crying out loud.... this is 1000x better than what we have already. facepalm *groan*

No buffs yet, only socializing, no leaderboards, no level. Well, at least no hassle to gain anything - there simply isn´t..

Personal opinion, what DDO has too much, NWO is too barren. But I am sure they will start soon(tm) to add pay2play buffs for guilds...


IKnowRite?!?!?

Just wait until they bring in Guild Halls or (gasp) Guild SKYSHIPS.


Here is some free advice Turbine: Remove Guild Decay. It may (yet) not be too late.

Well, your suggestion is stone old. Still the best solution. But if Turbine and the DEVs would have given even a dime for whats our opinion´s worth, we would have a system without decay in place for at least 2 years now.

[Asanarama]

Everyone wants different things from a guild. The guild you describe would be a very poor guild to me. The very first thing I would say upon joining such a guild is "when will we get some more members?"Why? If it's so the guild can level more quickly, that's my point. If it weren't necessary to pad a guild's numbers just for the sake of leveling at a reasonable speed, we'd be more able to form guilds with people because we actually like them.
It sounds like you just want a small friends list and a private chat channel. That might be ok for some but others want more.I’m not happy with how I phrased things. It might be possible to add some other features in a way that doesn’t make it more difficult to maintain the ideal of “people who like each other and tend to be online at the same time” or however I put it. The current guild leveling system, however, significantly interferes with it.
Like the ability to organize guild raids regularlyAn in-game guild event calendar would be great. If you’re talking about having enough members to be able to raid regularly, I agree. My impression, however, is that the number of members needed to level a guild at a reasonable rate vastly exceeds the number of members needed to be able to raid regularly.
or a guild chat channel that actually has a lot of people on it chatting.This is going to sound familiar, but the number of members needed to level a guild at a reasonable rate vastly exceeds the number of members needed to maintain a reasonable amount of chat. Also, the extent to which one appreciates the chat is proportional to the extent to which the guild approaches the ideals I mentioned.
don't assume that your view of what is a good guild is the same view of what is a good guild for everyone.I don’t assume that. I’m in the habit of never using phrases like “I think” and “in my opinion” as they only clutter one’s writing. The standard, as I remember learning in high school or maybe earlier, is that it’s up to the reader to distinguish fact from opinion.
Agree. Everyone wants something different and the guild system should support them all.Would that include the idea that guilds of all sizes should have access to the same benefits?

[Tshober]

Why? If it's so the guild can level more quickly, that's my point.

No, not at all. So there will be more people to talk to, group with, get advice from, etc. It has been my experience that not everyone will always be the same level and always level at the same speed and always play at the same times. It just does not work that way for most casual game players. Being in a large guild gives such players, those who do not have a fixed playing group, the best chance to find others online that they can play with when they want to play. Yes, it is possible to do the same thing through PUGs but a large guild is often easier, especially for new players, So many of the LFG's are elite BB BYOH fests meant for TR's who have done the quests a hundred times and will zerg through them as fast as possible. My guild was very large (for years) when being very large meant your guild was NEVER going to level up. Ever. We are very happy that we can level up now, but even if we still could not level at all, we would be large and we would accept new players because there is a great need in DDO for such guilds.

[TheNewSlarden]

No, not at all. So there will be more people to talk to, group with, get advice from, etc. It has been my experience that not everyone will always be the same level and always level at the same speed and always play at the same times. It just does not work that way for most casual game players. Being in a large guild gives such players, those who do not have a fixed playing group, the best chance to find others online that they can play with when they want to play. Yes, it is possible to do the same thing through PUGs but a large guild is often easier, especially for new players, So many of the LFG's are elite BB BYOH fests meant for TR's who have done the quests a hundred times and will zerg through them as fast as possible. My guild was very large (for years) when being very large meant your guild was NEVER going to level up. Ever. We are very happy that we can level up now, but even if we still could not level at all, we would be large and we would accept new players because there is a great need in DDO for such guilds.

That is your point of view. The fact is most of the casual gamers I run into are in small guilds or new guilds - not the large established guilds that benefited the most from these changes. Most of those guilds will not take the casual players that are so often touted as the reason why this change was good.

I think healthy small and new guilds are more important to DDO as they effectively drive the LFM system. We've already seen a massive drop in LFMs since this system was put in place because it gave big incentives for the large established guilds to recruit veteran players. Now those vets are no longer forming LFMs.

guild size is a personal preference. As much as you try to argue it, it's simply not true that large guilds are better for DDO or preferable.

I don't think anything will change. I was informed that the developer responsible for these changes posted a response here with a non-developer account effectively saying that small guilds are only suffering due to their own playstyle choice. I was not aware that was the developer's account at the time, but I do believe the person that told me.

Of course that argument is completely faulty. In the example I posted earlier about level 81 guilds.with each guild averaging 500 renown per person. The 10 person guild lost renown and the 400 person guild gained approximately 175k renwown for the day. Now without decay, the large guild would gain 200k and the small guild would gain 17k. That is where the playstyle choice should come into play- with slower movement not by stopping guilds from advancing.

With no guild decay the 10 person guild would advance 17k and the large guild would advance 200k instead of the small guild moving backwards and the large guild gaining 175k. But the developer chose to make it even harder for small guilds with the ransack penalty on top of it all. What is the point of decay? The sole purpose now is to prevent tiny guilds from advancing.

The only size-neutral D&D system that will be around any time soon is with Neverwinter. It doesn't appear Turbine even understands or acknowledges the issue. They didn't even have the courtesy to announce whether this change was permanent or temporary - they simply just dropped out of the discussion and didn't communicate anything.

[Dandonk]

I don't think anything will change. I was informed that the developer responsible for these changes posted a response here with a non-developer account effectively saying that small guilds are only suffering due to their own playstyle choice. I was not aware that was the developer's account at the time, but I do believe the person that told me.

I sincerely hope you were misinformed.

But after so many months, it does seem like that is Turbine's position - even if they have stated the opposite, they are sure not acting on previous statements.

[jalont]

It would be great if both guilds advanced, but instead the tiny guild moves backwards and the large guild moves forward very fast due to the broken system currently in place.

Your assertion that large guilds earn less decay/player is not backed up by any facts or data. There is no reason to believe that activity level has to do with guild size. In fact, before the change even though there was a tiny percentage of small guilds at high levels, the typical large guild was a higher level than the typical small guild.

You are using bath based on false numbers because you are assuming small guilds have more active members. If that was the case DDO should be discouraging large guilds and encouraging small guilds since it causes them to be more active. But it's not true, activity level and guild size are unrelated variable.

Large guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. Small guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. It's simply a grouping preference and DDO should not apply a penalty harshly solely because of a grouping preference. It will only continue to drive more people away from the game.


I think there is a big disconnect between some players and Turbine regarding this issue. It's clear that Turbine wants the current guild system to be a ranking system and a competition. And honestly, that's how most games do it. This idea that all guilds are special is foreign to me. It's just not something I've seen before or something I would enjoy.

So while Turbine designs the guild system in this manner, we get other people complaining that it hurts small guilds. Well, honestly, that could be on purpose. Perhaps a small guild isn't supposed to be the same as a large guild. This isn't the way the system is designed.

Now, about decay. Most games have some factor that ranks their guilds by current activity, so you get a snapshot of guild rank as it currently is. Because of the nature of DDO, this is something hard for the devs to do. There's no PVP and there is really no other score to rank them by. This is why renowned exists. This is why decay exists. It's an attempt by the devs to take a current snapshot of guild ranking. Could it be improved? Yes, but I'm not sure how. Simply doing away with decay would be a complete change to guild design, and while it seems that this is something you may enjoy, it's not something everyone would enjoy. I like guilds being a competition. I use channels and friends lists for grouping. To me, guilds are something different, and that's the current design.

[Dandonk]

I think there is a big disconnect between some players and Turbine regarding this issue. It's clear that Turbine wants the current guild system to be a ranking system and a competition. And honestly, that's how most games do it. This idea that all guilds are special is foreign to me. It's just not something I've seen before or something I would enjoy.

It used to be a ranking system. Now large guilds can advance while doing next to nothing, while small guilds are still stuck with the old decay - plus a higher ransack mechanic.


So while Turbine designs the guild system in this manner, we get other people complaining that it hurts small guilds. Well, honestly, that could be on purpose. Perhaps a small guild isn't supposed to be the same as a large guild. This isn't the way the system is designed.

They have said, both at the start of the renown system and more recently during this discussion, that they do not mean to make small guilds less attractive.

Though their actions, I grant you, say otherwise.


Now, about decay. Most games have some factor that ranks their guilds by current activity, so you get a snapshot of guild rank as it currently is. Because of the nature of DDO, this is something hard for the devs to do. There's no PVP and there is really no other score to rank them by. This is why renowned exists. This is why decay exists. It's an attempt by the devs to take a current snapshot of guild ranking. Could it be improved? Yes, but I'm not sure how. Simply doing away with decay would be a complete change to guild design, and while it seems that this is something you may enjoy, it's not something everyone would enjoy. I like guilds being a competition. I use channels and friends lists for grouping. To me, guilds are something different, and that's the current design.

As long as the "competition" is somewhat fair for both small and large guilds.

There was a problem earlier when large guilds had trouble advancing without kicking the less active members. This new system is what we got in consequence. This seems to indicate that 1) Turbine wants less active players to not be left out, and therefore 2) They don't really care about the activity competition part anymore.

Get rid of decay altogether. It doesn't serve the purpose it did before - it only serves to hold small guilds back.

[Tshober]

They don't really care about the activity competition part anymore.

Get rid of decay altogether. It doesn't serve the purpose it did before - it only serves to hold small guilds back.

The whole idea of making a competition out of how much time you spend farming renown to outpace the decay monster is pretty ridiculous. It is inherently biased against casual players because it does not adjust for time logged in. In fact, it basically boils down to those who spend the most time logged in every day win. Having a small token reward for such dedication to the game would be okay but basing the entire guild leveling system on that is just not a good strategy. This became apparent when established guilds pretty much unanimously shunned casual/social players and new players when it was obvious they could only advance by doing so. The devs put in a quick patch that reduced the decay for many guilds but, unfortunately, it did not reduce decay at all for small guilds. You are correct to point out that decay no longer is serving its original intended purpose and is still serving its unintended purpose for small guilds. It should be eliminated entirely.

If a guild activity contest is needed, then it should be separate from guild leveling and should be for bragging rights only. In no MMO I have ever played is your character level tied to competition with other players. Why should guild level be tied to competition with other guilds? In no MMO I have ever played is guild progress lost on a regular daily schedule like it is in DDO. No other part of DDO takes away your progress after you have earned it. Why must renown decay work so differently from everything else in DDO and from other MMO's? Renown decay was an interesting experiment that didn't work out well. It's time to end it.

[Dandonk]

The whole idea of making a competition out of how much time you spend farming renown to outpace the decay monster is pretty ridiculous.

Renown decay was an interesting experiment that didn't work out well. It's time to end it.

I do not disagree.

My comment was meant to illustrate to the poster I was replying to that even the original (bad) purpose is no longer being served by the current system.

There is no longer any purpose being served by renown, beyond holding small guilds back. Which Turbine said wasn't their intention. But they're doing anyway, for more than half a year - without any word. I understand that they can't comment on every issue anyone could possibly have right away. But it's been nearly seven months since the original change. Surely during those months, some kind of comment beyond "We may or may not make any change, but we're not there yet". Which is no comment at all.

[TheNewSlarden]

I do not disagree.

My comment was meant to illustrate to the poster I was replying to that even the original (bad) purpose is no longer being served by the current system.

There is no longer any purpose being served by renown, beyond holding small guilds back. Which Turbine said wasn't their intention. But they're doing anyway, for more than half a year - without any word. I understand that they can't comment on every issue anyone could possibly have right away. But it's been nearly seven months since the original change. Surely during those months, some kind of comment beyond "We may or may not make any change, but we're not there yet". Which is no comment at all.

Do you remember DocBenway? A player that commented here previously but hasn't been on the forums at all recently. I am not sure if he is another casualty of the guild system or simply not posting any more. He was a long time player in a stalled casual guild.

Anyhow, he believed that Turbine's intention for this change was monetary and not strategic. I had never considered that until he pointed it out, but it makes perfect sense. Guild product sales is directly measurable regardless of how small that # may be. Measuring player loss due to the guild system is likely impossible to measure. So Turbine appears to believe that whatever they are earning from guild product sales is a bigger # than what they lose through player attrition. And I believe Doc actually nailed the issue with his statements. This would explain why Turbine decided to make it harder for tiny guilds by adding the ransack penalty on top of an already difficult system.

It's rather obvious that small guilds are the primary purchasers of guild products since they are at a natural leveling disadvantage even under the old system where advancing took much longer (except for the tiny % of highly active small guilds). There are also many more small guilds than there are large guilds. I think it's a mistake to believe small guilds will stop purchasing products by stalling them. To me guild elixirs are more valuable knowing I won't lose progress.

It would be interesting to compare sales volume the last few times they had guild sales to see the trend. My guess is that guild sales are declining and will continue to decline. If Turbine punishes a certain play style - in this case people that prefer to guild with a small group of people - over time you will have less of those people. It's common sense.

[Dandonk]

Do you remember DocBenway? A player that commented here previously but hasn't been on the forums at all recently. I am not sure if he is another casualty of the guild system or simply not posting any more. He was a long time player in a stalled casual guild.

Anyhow, he believed that Turbine's intention for this change was monetary and not strategic. I had never considered that until he pointed it out, but it makes perfect sense. Guild product sales is directly measurable regardless of how small that # may be. Measuring player loss due to the guild system is likely impossible to measure. So Turbine appears to believe that whatever they are earning from guild product sales is a bigger # than what they lose through player attrition. And I believe Doc actually nailed the issue with his statements. This would explain why Turbine decided to make it harder for tiny guilds by adding the ransack penalty on top of an already difficult system.

It's rather obvious that small guilds are the primary purchasers of guild products since they are at a natural leveling disadvantage even under the old system where advancing took much longer (except for the tiny % of highly active small guilds). There are also many more small guilds than there are large guilds. I think it's a mistake to believe small guilds will stop purchasing products by stalling them. To me guild elixirs are more valuable knowing I won't lose progress.

It would be interesting to compare sales volume the last few times they had guild sales to see the trend. My guess is that guild sales are declining and will continue to decline. If Turbine punishes a certain play style - in this case people that prefer to guild with a small group of people - over time you will have less of those people. It's common sense.

I don't think we have any reliable way of determining what the Store result of this change has been. Maybe not even Turbine can figure that out.

But generally speaking alienating a large part of your customer base due to something that would be fairly easy to change... that seems an, shall we say, odd business decision.

Get rid of decay altogether. Make the system open ended after 100 (with no further in game benefits), if you must cater to the competition crowd, but get rid of decay altogether.

[Nestroy]

I don't think we have any reliable way of determining what the Store result of this change has been. Maybe not even Turbine can figure that out.

But generally speaking alienating a large part of your customer base due to something that would be fairly easy to change... that seems an, shall we say, odd business decision.

Get rid of decay altogether. Make the system open ended after 100 (with no further in game benefits), if you must cater to the competition crowd, but get rid of decay altogether.

I will now post my Standard Posting(TM): If the devs would give a dime for their player base, the renown decay would have been done away with a long time ago.

Therefore, you are perfectly right, as is Tshober, was DocBenway and is Slarden. And no, there are no changes comming soon(tm).

[Dandonk]

I will now post my Standard Posting(TM): If the devs would give a dime for their player base, the renown decay would have been done away with a long time ago.

Therefore, you are perfectly right, as is Tshober, was DocBenway and is Slarden. And no, there are no changes comming soon(tm).

I fear you are right. Sadly.

[Gremmlynn]

It would be great if both guilds advanced, but instead the tiny guild moves backwards and the large guild moves forward very fast due to the broken system currently in place.

Your assertion that large guilds earn less decay/player is not backed up by any facts or data. There is no reason to believe that activity level has to do with guild size. In fact, before the change even though there was a tiny percentage of small guilds at high levels, the typical large guild was a higher level than the typical small guild.

You are using bath based on false numbers because you are assuming small guilds have more active members. If that was the case DDO should be discouraging large guilds and encouraging small guilds since it causes them to be more active. But it's not true, activity level and guild size are unrelated variable.

Large guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. Small guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. It's simply a grouping preference and DDO should not apply a penalty harshly solely because of a grouping preference. It will only continue to drive more people away from the game.Actually, I'm not really using math at all as I don't have access to hard enough numbers to attempt to do that. I'm just stating my experiences and my take on the rough demographics.

As far how well small guilds were doing before. Factor in that every one person "guild", every guild that failed at attracting players and every guild that was falling apart defaulted to being a small guild and it skews the numbers quite a bit.

No, the game shouldn't encourage small guilds IMO as they don't make players more active, they just don't function well unless the players in them are more active. I know a lot of us seem to prefer the small guild environment, but the reality as I see it is that it simply requires more commitment to playing than most have to make them work. In this system or just in general. It's simply to have the quantity to make up for the lack of activity I feel I can expect from others that I play in a large guild over a small, be it for renown or simply other to play with.

[Gremmlynn]

There should be no such thing as guild renown. A guild should consist only of a chat channel and a shared bank, both controlled by a reasonable system of leadership. Ideally, people join a guild because they get along with each other and tend to be online at the same times so they can play together. That's what makes a guild fun, but it's not easy to achieve. Adding other factors only makes it harder. If you want the significant advantages available only to members of high-level guilds, you have to almost entirely give up on what makes a guild fun. The number of members needed to increase a guild's level at a reasonable rate almost guarantees that people won't get along.The problem with this is it leaves out any players that simply don't have a tendency to play at any particular time or if they do it's not often enough to likely find a group of other player that match it. Which, from my experience, is a large group of players. In my guild of about 100 active members any of the 5 most active players likely play more than the 50 least active combined and those 5 combined easily play more than all the rest combined.

[Gremmlynn]

I think there is a big disconnect between some players and Turbine regarding this issue. It's clear that Turbine wants the current guild system to be a ranking system and a competition. And honestly, that's how most games do it. This idea that all guilds are special is foreign to me. It's just not something I've seen before or something I would enjoy.

So while Turbine designs the guild system in this manner, we get other people complaining that it hurts small guilds. Well, honestly, that could be on purpose. Perhaps a small guild isn't supposed to be the same as a large guild. This isn't the way the system is designed.

Now, about decay. Most games have some factor that ranks their guilds by current activity, so you get a snapshot of guild rank as it currently is. Because of the nature of DDO, this is something hard for the devs to do. There's no PVP and there is really no other score to rank them by. This is why renowned exists. This is why decay exists. It's an attempt by the devs to take a current snapshot of guild ranking. Could it be improved? Yes, but I'm not sure how. Simply doing away with decay would be a complete change to guild design, and while it seems that this is something you may enjoy, it's not something everyone would enjoy. I like guilds being a competition. I use channels and friends lists for grouping. To me, guilds are something different, and that's the current design.Unfortunately, I don't see how that point of view is good for most players or the game as a whole. DDO simply doesn't have the player pop to make systems that basically disregards a large chunk of the player base. With your system, only those with the ability and inclination to be competitive would really get anything out of guilds.

[Gremmlynn]

Get rid of decay altogether. It doesn't serve the purpose it did before - it only serves to hold small guilds back.Actually, it serves the purpose of not forcing the devs to remove the level cap or allow guilds to hit 100 and be done with the whole thing.

That's how I think they see it. It's what keeps the system perpetual without their having to add man-hours to it and they don't seem to think that prestige levels above 100 would be enough to keep players busy. To me it seems the whole system missed the intended mark of giving the player base something else to do to keep them playing.

[unacceptable]

Actually, I'm not really using math at all as I don't have access to hard enough numbers to attempt to do that. I'm just stating my experiences and my take on the rough demographics.

As far how well small guilds were doing before. Factor in that every one person "guild", every guild that failed at attracting players and every guild that was falling apart defaulted to being a small guild and it skews the numbers quite a bit.

No, the game shouldn't encourage small guilds IMO as they don't make players more active, they just don't function well unless the players in them are more active. I know a lot of us seem to prefer the small guild environment, but the reality as I see it is that it simply requires more commitment to playing than most have to make them work. In this system or just in general. It's simply to have the quantity to make up for the lack of activity I feel I can expect from others that I play in a large guild over a small, be it for renown or simply other to play with.

I like my guild and the only thing I don't enjoy about it is getting crushing decay. It's actually the only thing in this game I strongly dislike. So much so, I don't know if I will purchase the expansion unless they will make it so that all guilds can get ship buffs. It was always bad, but now it's only bad for little guilds like mine. We can't recruit because nobody wants to be in a small guild that doesn't already have all the buffs. We are just left to wither on the vine after working so hard for so long. It's wrong. It's that simple.

[Nestroy]

I like my guild and the only thing I don't enjoy about it is getting crushing decay. It's actually the only thing in this game I strongly dislike. So much so, I don't know if I will purchase the expansion unless they will make it so that all guilds can get ship buffs. It was always bad, but now it's only bad for little guilds like mine. We can't recruit because nobody wants to be in a small guild that doesn't already have all the buffs. We are just left to wither on the vine after working so hard for so long. It's wrong. It's that simple.

+1

I am in a small guild that made it all way up to lv. 64. We meanwhile have most meaningful buffs, but recruiting still is tedious. Esbecially on a server like Wayfinder with most new players on the server being one-time favor runners. Guys, if you want to see a dead server, look at Wayfinder. If you think Argonessen is dead, watch the "german" server. There are days I find more people from german speaking guilds on Orien than total players on Wayfinder. Concept theoretically sound, badly implemented, idea dead.

[Dandonk]

Actually, it serves the purpose of not forcing the devs to remove the level cap or allow guilds to hit 100 and be done with the whole thing.

That's how I think they see it. It's what keeps the system perpetual without their having to add man-hours to it and they don't seem to think that prestige levels above 100 would be enough to keep players busy. To me it seems the whole system missed the intended mark of giving the player base something else to do to keep them playing.

Hmm, so they don't think their game is good enough to keep players playing, but want to add artificial minigames and hope that helps? Could be.

Daily/Weekly/monthly leaderboards, arranged by total and by amount per player, or something. Could work, too.

Please, Turbine, let's get rid of decay.

[TheNewSlarden]

The update does not address guild renown.

For those of you that thought this update might address the present guild decay burden small guilds are faced with. I wouldn't; get your hopes up, changing the multiplier to 10 or 0 instead of 20 could have been done long ago. There is really no reason to believe anything will change.

[Dandonk]

For those of you that thought this update might address the present guild decay burden small guilds are faced with. I wouldn't; get your hopes up, changing the multiplier to 10 or 0 instead of 20 could have been done long ago. There is really no reason to believe anything will change.

I guess we will have to be louder about this issue.

Well, it worked for large guilds, why not for us?

[Tshober]

I guess we will have to be louder about this issue.

Well, it worked for large guilds, why not for us?

Complaining did eventually get the devs to make a change. But for more than a year prior to that change, our many posts and long threads arguing for change were pretty much completely ignored. No devs weighed in at all in any of the many, many long threads on the subject until they posted a comment in one thread just before the change was made. One of the common arguments from those who opposed change was that the devs had obviously decided that our complaints had no merit because they had totally ignored our complaints for so long. It was disheartening. But we persevered and argued on the actual merits and eventually got change.

[Dandonk]

Complaining did eventually get the devs to make a change. But for more than a year prior to that change, our many posts and long threads arguing for change were pretty much completely ignored. No devs weighed in at all in any of the many, many long threads on the subject until they posted a comment in one thread just before the change was made. One of the common arguments from those who opposed change was that the devs had obviously decided that our complaints had no merit because they had totally ignored our complaints for so long. It was disheartening. But we persevered and argued on the actual merits and eventually got change.

Well, we're up to something like seven months now, so more than halfway there. Yay.

[TheNewSlarden]

This is the way it is going. I just saw this in the general forum.


I don't personally know you, but did you ever think that you have perhaps been blacklisted due to your behavior? There was a time when people could act a certain way and the community was large enough and spread out enough where their behavior had no consequences. With the change to decay and the rise of super-guilds, this is no more. Being rude to one person can get you blacklisted by a guild with 500 active members..

[TheNewSlarden]

I can't edit so I'll add here. Being rude is one thing, but I 've seen people blacklisted for some really bad reasons by guilds. Fortunately I don't think I am blacklisted, but I feel bad for people that are blacklisted by the super guilds.

[jalont]

I can't edit so I'll add here. Being rude is one thing, but I 've seen people blacklisted for some really bad reasons by guilds. Fortunately I don't think I am blacklisted, but I feel bad for people that are blacklisted by the super guilds.

I only take part in blacklists of people that deserve it. And those are people that are rude, cruel and immature. Not for any other reason. Of course, others blacklist for other reasons, but that's always happened.

I just wanted to piggyback this post by making a comment about your earlier comment about keeping decay for financial reasons. (did that make sense? hope so lol) I don't think that really makes any sense for Turbine to do that. Their changes have increased the ability for guilds to gain levels so very very quickly. That's a weird out to give the playerbase. I think they assume that people who want to have a higher ranked guild will work harder to grow their guild. I really think small guilds putting their foot down and saying, no, we will not work to grow our guilds, but will wait for the system to change and recognize us, was something that was really unforeseen, and not something Turbine depended on to make money.

[TheNewSlarden]

I only take part in blacklists of people that deserve it. And those are people that are rude, cruel and immature. Not for any other reason. Of course, others blacklist for other reasons, but that's always happened.

I just wanted to piggyback this post by making a comment about your earlier comment about keeping decay for financial reasons. (did that make sense? hope so lol) I don't think that really makes any sense for Turbine to do that. Their changes have increased the ability for guilds to gain levels so very very quickly. That's a weird out to give the playerbase. I think they assume that people who want to have a higher ranked guild will work harder to grow their guild. I really think small guilds putting their foot down and saying, no, we will not work to grow our guilds, but will wait for the system to change and recognize us, was something that was really unforeseen, and not something Turbine depended on to make money.

I believe blacklists are against the rules here, but I realize in reality the superguilds still have blacklists and Turbine will never be able to stop it.

I have never blacklisted anyone myself. The problem with these blacklists is that you can't know everyone in your guild and some people are going to get blacklisted for really stupid reasons - even if the blacklisted person did nothing wrong.

As far as growing the guild, there is just not many (if any) unguilded players at end game that want to join a guild. And if they do they won't want to join a guild that can't advance due to decay.

I respect your opinion. I just think it's hard to understand the decay burden of a small casual guild unless you were ever in one.

[Nestroy]

... for the devs to finally do away with ransack and renown decay.

Well, I will go for Shadowfell Conspiracy, but in my guild there will only be a few following. Sad but true.

[Dandonk]

... for the devs to finally do away with ransack and renown decay.

Well, I will go for Shadowfell Conspiracy, but in my guild there will only be a few following. Sad but true.

Sad :(

Hopefully Turbine will do something soon, rather than Soon(TM). But then, I might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.

[Blue100000005]

Sad :(

Hopefully Turbine will do something soon, rather than Soon(TM). But then, I might as well believe in the Easter Bunny.

I will see whoever there. Still LOVE ddo regardless of the little imperfections.

[Dandonk]

I will see whoever there. Still LOVE ddo regardless of the little imperfections.

Oh, I do too. But why settle for less than it could be?

And to, this is not a "little" issue. I see big potential issues in the skewed system that's currently running.

[Arnez]

... for the devs to finally do away with ransack and renown decay.

Well, I will go for Shadowfell Conspiracy, but in my guild there will only be a few following. Sad but true.


I've got a tin-foil theory that's probably more right on target than I realize:

I bet Guild Decay is the brain-child of the son (or relation) of someone high up. All the "smart folk" want it gone and can totally see that it actually detracts from the game- but are afraid to go up against nepotism.

Given the complete absence of information as to why guild decay is a good thing, what else should we think?

Now... back to my Guild Skyship (which will probably hit NWO sooner than Guild decay disappearing)

[Dandonk]

Given the complete absence of information as to why guild decay is a good thing, what else should we think?

You could be right, who knows.

There once was a point to decay. Now the only point is to make large guilds insanely better at levelling than small guilds. Matehematically they were ahead before, too, but now the difference is just stupid.

Let's get rid of decay altogether, please. It does not serve any real purpose anymore, and it only annoys people.

[slarden]

I will see whoever there. Still LOVE ddo regardless of the little imperfections.

I like DDO as well and try to not let the guild system get to me, but I am not succeeding at that. I pre-purchased the expansion and plan to keep my hand in DDO for now, but I am not sure whether the game will make sense for me long-term. I decided a while ago I would wait until this October and if there is not some adjustment made then I will most likely look towards other ways to spend my hobby time. That is the one-year marker for the current change and also the time my VIP subscription runs out. I've already turned off my VIP in account management so it's not automatically renewed like last year.

For me the issue isn't so much my guild level, it's the health of small guilds in general and the impact on the LFM system. While I don't use the LFM system as much as I used to, I think keeping a strong LFM system is important for the game. I also don't like that I have to run content very fast and solo/zerg to keep up with decay. I don't see why I should have to run content to just avoid moving backwards. Why can't we run content slower and advance at a slower pace? The daily decay forces every guild to run a certain amount of content just to break even. Obviously when that is divided by 10 instead of 200 it means those 10 people must run the same amount of content that 200 people run just to cover the daily decay tax. n If you have casual people that log in a few times and run one or two quests when they do login, it's makes it that much harder.

For nowI am playing DDO while testing out the waters of other games as well. But the guild system is a big factor in whether I will continue.

[slarden]

So many typos above and I still can't edit my posts. At least my real account is working now.

I didn't mean to say "why should I have to run content" I meant to say "Why should I have to run content FAST".

[UurlockYgmeov]

I like DDO as well and try to not let the guild system get to me, but I am not succeeding at that. I pre-purchased the expansion and plan to keep my hand in DDO for now, but I am not sure whether the game will make sense for me long-term. I decided a while ago I would wait until this October and if there is not some adjustment made then I will most likely look towards other ways to spend my hobby time. That is the one-year marker for the current change and also the time my VIP subscription runs out. I've already turned off my VIP in account management so it's not automatically renewed like last year.

For me the issue isn't so much my guild level, it's the health of small guilds in general and the impact on the LFM system. While I don't use the LFM system as much as I used to, I think keeping a strong LFM system is important for the game. I also don't like that I have to run content very fast and solo/zerg to keep up with decay. I don't see why I should have to run content to just avoid moving backwards. Why can't we run content slower and advance at a slower pace? The daily decay forces every guild to run a certain amount of content just to break even. Obviously when that is divided by 10 instead of 200 it means those 10 people must run the same amount of content that 200 people run just to cover the daily decay tax. n If you have casual people that log in a few times and run one or two quests when they do login, it's makes it that much harder.

For nowI am playing DDO while testing out the waters of other games as well. But the guild system is a big factor in whether I will continue.


+1

the guild I am in now faces a paradigm shift. We are a small guild of 13 modified accounts. Currently just under level 60. Our daily decay is just under 4400. I run multiple toons every day through a specific quest to just fight decay. One of our core members who has been fundamental to the essential culture of the guild is deploying for his 3rd tour of the sandbox; which means that he will not be playing for a year (going into never-never internet land) and with him his wife who also plays.

Our guild will hit the first major wall of decay at level 61 at which point our decay goes up by almost 50% to just under 6400 per day.

So do we just stagnate or do we just mass invite? We rather not do either.

It is time for a correction. Time to actually make a guild system that works and not just a ghost of an incomplete idea.

I've been playing since the beginning (this account was created Aug of beta - had another from March? or so of beta but lost the username/password or something like that and then created this one). I really do enjoy the game and spend allot of time coaching and mentoring.

So I guess it is time to coach and mentor the Turbine team. How is that Neverwinter has a fully functional guild system (with all the bells and whistles) and it is not even out of beta?

http://hydra-images.cursecdn.com/neverwinter.gamepedia.com/thumb/9/91/Guild_News.PNG/400px-Guild_News.PNG

http://hydra-images.cursecdn.com/neverwinter.gamepedia.com/thumb/1/18/Guild_Rooster.PNG/400px-Guild_Rooster.PNG

http://hydra-images.cursecdn.com/neverwinter.gamepedia.com/thumb/6/6b/Guild_Info.PNG/400px-Guild_Info.PNG

http://hydra-images.cursecdn.com/neverwinter.gamepedia.com/thumb/4/48/Guild_Sett.PNG/400px-Guild_Sett.PNG

It has a guild portal that allows for auto-recruitment; guild banks; and many other features too numerous to count.

http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Guild

Time to get with the program Turbine. Decay is only part of the greater issue with guilds, at least fix it to be fair for all, and kindly do it before the expansion launches; and tell us that you are fixing it.

[slarden]

I agree Uurlock. I really do like the NWO guild system. For folks like us that have been here a while it's not so easy to walk away even when the guild system is so much better.

For a new player that wants to play and start a guild with their family and/or a few friends, I would never suggest DDO given the decay hurdle they will eventually face. You might as well invest the time in Neverwinter since the system is already size-neutral and is geared towards facilitating the guild and not on punishment mechanisms. I like DDO, but knowing what I know now I wouldn't start playing the game today with a group of friends as I did. The game discourages that play style and actively punishes it with decay.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I agree Uurlock. I really do like the NWO guild system. For folks like us that have been here a while it's not so easy to walk away even when the guild system is so much better.

For a new player that wants to play and start a guild with their family and/or a few friends, I would never suggest DDO given the decay hurdle they will eventually face. You might as well invest the time in Neverwinter since the system is already size-neutral and is geared towards facilitating the guild and not on punishment mechanisms. I like DDO, but knowing what I know now I wouldn't start playing the game today with a group of friends as I did. The game discourages that play style and actively punishes it with decay.

Hear-Hear!

[slarden]

I am hopeful that arguments about guild size will be kept to a minimum. Turbine really set the stage for those type of arguments with these type of comments:


The intent is to address concerns from guilds and guild leaders regarding the impact of optimizing guild size in order to gain or maintain guild levels. We’ll be making additional balance changes that we think you and your guildmates will appreciate, but for now we have applied the changes without downtime.

I hope we don't go back to the large vs small guild arguments. I really think Turbine set the stage for that when they decided to make it much easier for large guilds and even harder for tiny guilds by adding the renown ransack penalty on top of the legacy decay amount.

I personally found it offensive that Turbine was implying small guilds are small because they were trying to optimize guild level. Under the old system 20 was better able to mathematically exploit the flaw in the decay calculation than 10 or less and I can prove that out. Also, the percentage of people that really did this is so tiny in comparison with the guilds that didn't do it.

I also think years of frustration from large guild leaders and members of large guilds caused some heated discussions because they didn't want to go back to the old system. Turbine should have anticipated such arguments when they decided to make a change that was so unbalanced.

In the end, I think almost everyone agrees decay is bad and would like to see it eliminated. I think everyone agrees (almost) that we don't want to return to the old system and see our friends in large guilds get stuck from decay. I think everyone agrees (almost) that we would like to see decay reduced for small guilds so our friends in small guilds don't get stuck due to decay.

By the way, Tolero's post said they will be making additional balance changes appreciated by your guildmates (see above). I hope you are all appreciative of those additional changes that were made to balance the system for guilds of all sizes.

[Charononus]

I personally found it offensive that Turbine was implying small guilds are small because they were trying to optimize guild level. Under the old system 20 was better able to mathematically exploit the flaw in the decay calculation than 10 or less and I can prove that out.

Bear in mind that to some of us a 20 member guild is too tiny to want to join. That's part of the problem in the conversation too.

[slarden]

Bear in mind that to some of us a 20 member guild is too tiny to want to join. That's part of the problem in the conversation too.

I think most people don't care what size guild other people want to be in. Let's just hope you don't go work for Turbine. That's the last thing we need is another developer with a bias/grudge against smaller guilds.

[Dandonk]

Bear in mind that to some of us a 20 member guild is too tiny to want to join. That's part of the problem in the conversation too.

What is the problem? Make guilds more equal, and everyone can join the type of guild they want without feeling left out or discriminated against. Win for everyone!

[eris2323]

Ahhh, Turbine censorship... Always fun.

Anyways, we all agree renown decay is horrible and shouldn't be in the game at all.

The devs do not agree.

It is sad that they want to throw away a percentage of their players because they insist on using a decay mechanism.

But Winter is coming.

And frankly - the game that makes me have the most fun is going to get my money.

[Charononus]

I think most people don't care what size guild other people want to be in. Let's just hope you don't go work for Turbine. That's the last thing we need is another developer with a bias/grudge against smaller guilds.


What is the problem? Make guilds more equal, and everyone can join the type of guild they want without feeling left out or discriminated against. Win for everyone!
I'm not saying that decay is good, decay is bad and should go, I probably didn't post this completely right, the comment also had to do with this comment in the post I quoted.



I personally found it offensive that Turbine was implying small guilds are small because they were trying to optimize guild level. Under the old system 20 was better able to mathematically exploit the flaw in the decay calculation than 10 or less and I can prove that out. Also, the percentage of people that really did this is so tiny in comparison with the guilds that didn't do it.


To me a guild size of 20 is a small guild and those that did optimize and made a guild size of 20 were making a small guild. You think that that's not a small guild from the way you talk about it. That's part of what I'm trying to say the problem is when we start using terms like small, large, ext.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I've been really quite as of late (probably because of the annoyance/frustration factor of the forum changes)....

I just want a complete guild system. I just want a guild system that is size neutral and style neutral. I want a system that makes managing / joining a guild easy (like NWO) and promotes the guild system as a whole. And I want it now. Too long already. This has a direct impact on all players, not just a small fraction that play a specific build or style. This on the scale of needs immediate attention is up there right after lag.

[Arnez]

Ahhh, Turbine censorship... Always fun.

Anyways, we all agree renown decay is horrible and shouldn't be in the game at all.

The devs do not agree.

It is sad that they want to throw away a percentage of their players because they insist on using a decay mechanism.

But Winter is coming.

And frankly - the game that makes me have the most fun is going to get my money.

Holy Carp Batman! Of all the "banter" that has been thrown across both sides of the aisle in this "debate" the 2 least inflammatory remarks are censored?!?!?
And they weren't even that bad (if you have been following the last 200 pages- of course if anyone has been following the last 200 pages you can see ONE THING BOTH SIDES AGREE ON: Guild Decay Needs to GO AWAY. With extreme prejudice.)


I'm with you eris. Winter is Coming.

[Charononus]

I'm with you eris. Winter is Coming.

Winter came and has already died in the fires of a million exploits and other problems. I bought the guardian founders pack and regret it. I may check it out again in a year or so if reviews say it has gotten better. But I personally know of 5 exploits that aren't fixed and probably won't be because fixing them involves rewriting server client communication. Other problems are

Broken aggro and threat mechanics

Broken group finding tools

Broken loot system that encourages griefing / ninjas

1 Boss fight mechanic for all bosses

Cheese is the predominate way to fight things (throwing mobs off cliffs ext because hp is so high)

Pvp has greater rewards/min for afk than participation

All gear is BoE, granted ddo is leaning this way too

I was never bothered by the whole 4e, not dnd issues people brought up but honestly these are game play problems that are so serious that it's pathetic.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Cheese is the predominate way to fight things (throwing mobs off cliffs ext because hp is so high)
But I just love using my Shield spell or Push spell to push a boss off a cliff! it is so fun! :P

[Charononus]

But I just love using my Shield spell or Push spell to push a boss off a cliff! it is so fun! :P

It's fun the first few times, but it's like when ed's were first released and people wanted multiple monks for ein where they'd charge up an ein before every fight. It's fun at first, then it gets old and toss em off the cliff is way more prevalent in nwo than ein cheese was.

edit*
and a lot of bosses can't be pushed now, it's just for the massive groups of adds now.

[UurlockYgmeov]

It's fun the first few times, but it's like when ed's were first released and people wanted multiple monks for ein where they'd charge up an ein before every fight. It's fun at first, then it gets old and toss em off the cliff is way more prevalent in nwo than ein cheese was.

edit*
and a lot of bosses can't be pushed now, it's just for the massive groups of adds now.

they can be pushed (which boss is the pirate?) just pushed him off (quite by accident) two days ago from the bridge. I was using the push spell for some extra DPS - and *poof* over the bridge he went. Was as much surprise as being able to smite Arach's Knight in VON5.

Being able to is fine - just don't make it easy to do. :D make it take tactics and strategy. We were 10 minutes into the fight when it happened.

and agree the EIN wasn't fun - it was anticlimactic.

[Dandonk]

Hello, Turbine? Anyone there? Anyone at all? All still quiet on the western front?

[Gremmlynn]

I agree Uurlock. I really do like the NWO guild system. For folks like us that have been here a while it's not so easy to walk away even when the guild system is so much better.

For a new player that wants to play and start a guild with their family and/or a few friends, I would never suggest DDO given the decay hurdle they will eventually face. You might as well invest the time in Neverwinter since the system is already size-neutral and is geared towards facilitating the guild and not on punishment mechanisms. I like DDO, but knowing what I know now I wouldn't start playing the game today with a group of friends as I did. The game discourages that play style and actively punishes it with decay.I don't see where anyone is ever punished for being in a guild. You automatically gain guild chat and decay doesn't even start till level 26. As long as one isn't worse off for being in a guild than not, and that isn't the case, I don't see the punishment.

[Dandonk]

I don't see where anyone is ever punished for being in a guild. You automatically gain guild chat and decay doesn't even start till level 26. As long as one isn't worse off for being in a guild than not, and that isn't the case, I don't see the punishment.

There was punishment enough before so that large guilds felt compelled to kick members to reduce this punishment. So I think we can safely say that many, if not most, feel this punishment.

Turbine, come on; It's not that hard - just remove decay, and put it out of all our collective misery.

[Gremmlynn]

There was punishment enough before so that large guilds felt compelled to kick members to reduce this punishment. So I think we can safely say that many, if not most, feel this punishment.

Turbine, come on; It's not that hard - just remove decay, and put it out of all our collective misery.It was more a matter of Turbine giving those players an incentive to kick less active players than punishing them. Though I guess you could say it was a punishment for those who got kicked.

[UurlockYgmeov]

It was more a matter of Turbine giving those players an incentive to kick less active players than punishing them. Though I guess you could say it was a punishment for those who got kicked.

I just feel like (as am sure many if not all do) Sisyphus, and our boulder is decay.

[Impaqt]

lol.. You people are still talking about this?

Turbine has moved on.

[Gremmlynn]

I just feel like (as am sure many if not all do) Sisyphus, and our boulder is decay.That I can understand, but it's more putting up with, or mostly ignoring the existence of, a broken system than feeling I'm being punished by it. But then, I was pretty content with what guilds offered before the whole leveling thing was added, so am more worried about how the system takes away from that than how fair it is in adding more to it.

[slarden]

lol.. You people are still talking about this?

Turbine has moved on.

I believe you but they haven't communicated that. It would be nice if they let us know the status of this temporary change that was put in place last October.

If they moved on they should close the thread.

[UurlockYgmeov]

lol.. You people are still talking about this?

Turbine has moved on.

Guess it is time for our semi-quarterly Turbine head-pop-in to tell us that they are still reading this and it is still a live topic.....


That I can understand, but it's more putting up with, or mostly ignoring the existence of, a broken system than feeling I'm being punished by it. But then, I was pretty content with what guilds offered before the whole leveling thing was added, so am more worried about how the system takes away from that than how fair it is in adding more to it.

I just want a complete system. Tired of pushing a boulder that continuously gets bigger - and when you get to the top you are teleported back to where you started..... (ransack)


I believe you but they haven't communicated that. It would be nice if they let us know the status of this temporary change that was put in place last October.

If they moved on they should close the thread.

agree.

[Charononus]

If they moved on they should close the thread.

As someone said probably 50 pages back, they won't ever do that, this thread keeps the topic out of the general forum.

[Dandonk]

As someone said probably 50 pages back, they won't ever do that, this thread keeps the topic out of the general forum.

Then maybe I should go to the other parts of the forum and see if I can get a reply there. Maybe they've just put this thread on /ignore.

But then Again, if so, they likely have me on /ignore, too.

[Arnez]

Then maybe I should go to the other parts of the forum and see if I can get a reply there. Maybe they've just put this thread on /ignore.

But then Again, if so, they likely have me on /ignore, too.

I think you should- and that all of us (who are still interested in AN ANSWER) should post there.

Although there has been 2 sides to this discussion (large vs small) The things we can agree on are: 1- Remove Decay; 2- GIVE US AN ANSWER.

[conryorion]

I recently lost one of my best guild mates due to decay. His frustration stemmed from the fact that a small guild (6 accounts) was having to earn 3000 renown per member every day just to stay ahead of the decay. With the change favoring large guilds it seems that DDO has chosen to eliminate or at least encourage the small guilds to fold up shop and get assimilated by large guilds. Please find a means to either eliminate decay or reduce the penalties so that high level guilds with a small number of active players don't have to be obsessive just to maintain their current guild level. I appreciate the guild renown bonus for a 6 person guild, but the 17,000 plus daily decay is just too much.

[Nestroy]

I recently lost one of my best guild mates due to decay. His frustration stemmed from the fact that a small guild (6 accounts) was having to earn 3000 renown per member every day just to stay ahead of the decay. With the change favoring large guilds it seems that DDO has chosen to eliminate or at least encourage the small guilds to fold up shop and get assimilated by large guilds. Please find a means to either eliminate decay or reduce the penalties so that high level guilds with a small number of active players don't have to be obsessive just to maintain their current guild level. I appreciate the guild renown bonus for a 6 person guild, but the 17,000 plus daily decay is just too much.

It is the same as it has been before the change when the large guilds stalled in their 80ies. Edit: This was of course not OK.

But it is frustrating for small guilds to chrunch out the renown necessary to hold a certain level when the neighbouring large guild flies past in level thanks to the freebie dole-out of reduced decay for large guilds and not based on their own superior activity level. Edit: The only fair solution would be doing away with decay all together.

Edit: I startet a thread in the open Forum now, here (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/417674-Petition-for-getting-answers-to-guild-renown-decay-from-Turbine).

[Dandonk]

It is the same as it has been before the change when the large guilds stalled in their 80ies. But it is frustrating for small guilds to chrunch out the renown necessary to hold a certain level when the neighbouring large guild flies past in level thanks to the freebie dole-out of reduced decay for large guilds and not based on their own superior activity Level.

Edit: I startet a thread in the open Forum now, here (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/417674-Petition-for-getting-answers-to-guild-renown-decay-from-Turbine).

Gj on the thread, hopefully more will join in soon.

Please, Turbine, get rid of decay now!

[Charononus]

It is the same as it has been before the change when the large guilds stalled in their 80ies. But it is frustrating for small guilds to chrunch out the renown necessary to hold a certain level when the neighbouring large guild flies past in level thanks to the freebie dole-out of reduced decay for large guilds and not based on their own superior activity Level.

Edit: I startet a thread in the open Forum now, here (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/417674-Petition-for-getting-answers-to-guild-renown-decay-from-Turbine).

Just something to note, I don't think you think this, but when you say


when the neighbouring large guild flies past in level thanks to the freebie dole-out of reduced decay for large guilds and not based on their own superior activity Level

it makes it sound like you want to stagnate large guilds again. When I first started reading this thread that's what I thought everyone that was talking about small guilds was asking for, and what I really have seen in some proposals. Not saying you think this, but leaving this part out and just talking about how small guilds are stuck now just like large guilds used to be will probably get you more support.

[Nestroy]

Just something to note, I don't think you think this, but when you say


it makes it sound like you want to stagnate large guilds again. When I first started reading this thread that's what I thought everyone that was talking about small guilds was asking for, and what I really have seen in some proposals. Not saying you think this, but leaving this part out and just talking about how small guilds are stuck now just like large guilds used to be will probably get you more support.

Yeah, the old problem with me (and others here) not being native speakers. Of course I want to get rid of decay completely,. I do not want to see any guild stalling. Independent of size or activity. Post edited accordingly.

[Dandonk]

Personally I do not particularly want large guilds to have more decay again. I want deay to go entirely away, or at the very least get significantly reduced for small guilds, just like it was for large guilds.

Turbine has stated that it's not fair that some of us should be kept waiting. But after that, it has still been several months. Come on, Turbine - stop this unfair treatment of small guilds now.

[Charononus]

Yeah, the old problem with me (and others here) not being native speakers. Of course I want to get rid of decay completely,. I do not want to see any guild stalling. Independent of size or activity. Post edited accordingly.
Cool

Personally I do not particularly want large guilds to have more decay again. I want deay to go entirely away, or at the very least get significantly reduced for small guilds, just like it was for large guilds.

Turbine has stated that it's not fair that some of us should be kept waiting. But after that, it has still been several months. Come on, Turbine - stop this unfair treatment of small guilds now.

Yeah, I don't believe it's true of 99.9% of people that they want large guilds to stall again. (you always get that 0.1% where the person is just kind of odd) And it very well could be language issues, but when I first started reading this thread I did think there were some thinking otherwise that as I've read more and more proved not to be thinking that. (hope that made sense) That's why I pointed out how it read to me. I think small guilds do need the help, and if small tweaks to the wording help get more people on board, then I just want to point that out and try to help with that.

[Dandonk]

Yeah, I don't believe it's true of 99.9% of people that they want large guilds to stall again. (you always get that 0.1% where the person is just kind of odd) And it very well could be language issues, but when I first started reading this thread I did think there were some thinking otherwise that as I've read more and more proved not to be thinking that. (hope that made sense) That's why I pointed out how it read to me. I think small guilds do need the help, and if small tweaks to the wording help get more people on board, then I just want to point that out and try to help with that.

It's a very good point, and wording should definitely be changed to where we get the most people possible on board with this :)

[slarden]

I recently lost one of my best guild mates due to decay. His frustration stemmed from the fact that a small guild (6 accounts) was having to earn 3000 renown per member every day just to stay ahead of the decay. With the change favoring large guilds it seems that DDO has chosen to eliminate or at least encourage the small guilds to fold up shop and get assimilated by large guilds. Please find a means to either eliminate decay or reduce the penalties so that high level guilds with a small number of active players don't have to be obsessive just to maintain their current guild level. I appreciate the guild renown bonus for a 6 person guild, but the 17,000 plus daily decay is just too much.

I can relate. We lost our guild leader because of guild decay and the fact that he spent considerable $ on renown elixirs not realizing that we would eventually stall during decay. He felt the system was misleading and unethical and moved on to SWTOR and is also playing NWO. I convinced him to play now and again, but his breaking point was when we gained a level and couldn't get any renown drops to ensure he could hold our level. We were up into the wee hours of the morning to get enough renown just to avoid losing the level we gained.

We found this thread and learned that not only did our guild get no benefit from this change, they made it much harder for us to keep levels we earn. He decided to quit the next day. He is a face to face friend also.

I lost 2 more casual face to face friends when they learned our guild moved backwards if they didn't play much. Neither played much, but both spent a reasonable amount of money on the game - they are both professionals with good jobs and families. They are in our SWTOR guild and NWO guild. We don't have any disadvantages in either game for being who we are. Only in DDO.

In November I started solo zerging rather than using the LFM system and we once again started moving forward since this enabled me to get at least triple the renown. I got this tip from someone I quested with on Sarlona who read my posts here and explained that is how his guild moved to high levels - zerging and not waiting to fill parties. Overall I do not understand why I get penalized for grouping with other people which results in slower runs and less renown. The system that gives us a fixed amount of decay every day doesn't allow our active guild to advance without these type of play style changes. It seems counterproductive and dumb to me.

[Tshober]

In November I started solo zerging rather than using the LFM system and we once again started moving forward since this enabled me to get at least triple the renown. I got this tip from someone I quested with on Sarlona who read my posts here and explained that is how his guild moved to high levels - zerging and not waiting to fill parties. Overall I do not understand why I get penalized for grouping with other people which results in slower runs and less renown. The system that gives us a fixed amount of decay every day doesn't allow our active guild to advance without these type of play style changes. It seems counterproductive and dumb to me.

I could not agree more. The best way to get people to keep playing the game is to allow them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. Renown decay strongly discourages all but a few styles of play, because other styles of play are penalized with greater daily renown loss. This mechanism should be eliminated.

[Dandonk]

I could not agree more. The best way to get people to keep playing the game is to allow them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. Renown decay strongly discourages all but a few styles of play, because other styles of play are penalized with greater daily renown loss. This mechanism should be eliminated.

Indeed. Open up the game to more people, instead of making them feel unwelcome.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I could not agree more. The best way to get people to keep playing the game is to allow them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. Renown decay strongly discourages all but a few styles of play, because other styles of play are penalized with greater daily renown loss. This mechanism should be eliminated.

agree

btw:

so how many days worth of decay did we just get hit with?? how many restarts?

appreciate the +15% and the lesser guild renown elixir groupon --- but will that make up for it?

[Dandonk]

Hello, Turbine?

How many months has it been since we got a real* reply? I'm not sure I can count that high...



* No, I don't count "We're not there yet" or "read by a dev" as meaningful and informative replies.

[slarden]

I could not agree more. The best way to get people to keep playing the game is to allow them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. Renown decay strongly discourages all but a few styles of play, because other styles of play are penalized with greater daily renown loss. This mechanism should be eliminated.

I agree, if you feel this way you may want to sign Nestroy's petition in the general discussion forum.

Thank you.

[Dandonk]

Never give up, never surrender!

Getting rid of decay will do the following positive Things for the game:

1) No players will feel their effort on behalf of their guild go away
2) Small guilds will nolonger have incentive to trim Down to the "hard" core of gamers
3) Guild choice will be a personal choice without incentive either way
4) Larger sale of guild ships for all the small guilds reaching higher levels
5) No eventual problem with guild renown lost from a member leaving being larger than the renown the guild has

And probably more I have forgotten.

Get rid of decay now, and make DDO a better place for everyone!

[slarden]

Never give up, never surrender!

Getting rid of decay will do the following positive Things for the game:

1) No players will feel their effort on behalf of their guild go away
2) Small guilds will nolonger have incentive to trim Down to the "hard" core of gamers
3) Guild choice will be a personal choice without incentive either way
4) Larger sale of guild ships for all the small guilds reaching higher levels
5) No eventual problem with guild renown lost from a member leaving being larger than the renown the guild has

And probably more I have forgotten.

Get rid of decay now, and make DDO a better place for everyone!

Yes, and I thank Nestroy for posting his petition in the general discussion forum. I was initially thinking that was a bad idea because most people don't want to see renown topics in the general discussion forum, but since the devs aren't checking in here and nobody else really checks here, it seems like the right approach. What I learned is that this is a common issue for people in tiny guilds. Even if the devs ignore the thread forever, it's definitely worth of being in the general discussion area.

If other people engage in tactics to close that thread it is their issue and they should be reported. As long as people supporting Nestroy's petition don't fall into the trap and respond to point/counterpoint responses continually it will stay open. If not, another can be opened starting off with a count and link to the last thread.

This topic used to be in the general discussion area multiple times per week when it was a large guild initiative. I don' think there is anything wrong with it being there as long as we aren't obnoxious and posting it numerous times in different threads.

Ironically there is a topic on suggestions to improve DDO and I didn't comment because I didn't want to spam the decay issue, and of course that got a "Read by devs" while the other topic was ignored by devs again. A previous suggestions to improve DDO had mostly ideas to remove renown and of course that one never got a "read by devs" even if it was read

Regardless of whether the haters try to hijack the thread or not, I thank you Nestroy for taking a stand and proving just how much support their is for this.

[Nestroy]

Yes, and I thank Nestroy for posting his petition in the general discussion forum. I was initially thinking that was a bad idea because most people don't want to see renown topics in the general discussion forum, but since the devs aren't checking in here and nobody else really checks here, it seems like the right approach. What I learned is that this is a common issue for people in tiny guilds. Even if the devs ignore the thread forever, it's definitely worth of being in the general discussion area.

If other people engage in tactics to close that thread it is their issue and they should be reported. As long as people supporting Nestroy's petition don't fall into the trap and respond to point/counterpoint responses continually it will stay open. If not, another can be opened starting off with a count and link to the last thread.

This topic used to be in the general discussion area multiple times per week when it was a large guild initiative. I don' think there is anything wrong with it being there as long as we aren't obnoxious and posting it numerous times in different threads.

Ironically there is a topic on suggestions to improve DDO and I didn't comment because I didn't want to spam the decay issue, and of course that got a "Read by devs" while the other topic was ignored by devs again. A previous suggestions to improve DDO had mostly ideas to remove renown and of course that one never got a "read by devs" even if it was read

Regardless of whether the haters try to hijack the thread or not, I thank you Nestroy for taking a stand and proving just how much support their is for this.

Thank you for the flowers, Slarden, even if completely undeserved. Let´s rejoyce on the day the renown decay finally is history. Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign for at least some official note from Turbine. Of course, I would rejoyce on Turbine doing this very small Change to their variables: SetActiveGuildMemberForDecayCount=0.

[slarden]

Thank you for the flowers, Slarden, even if completely undeserved. Let´s rejoyce on the day the renown decay finally is history. Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign for at least some official note from Turbine. Of course, I would rejoyce on Turbine doing this very small Change to their variables: SetActiveGuildMemberForDecayCount=0.

This seems like the easiest solution - it changes the decay multiplier from 20 to 10 for all guilds. Small guilds will still move at a slow pace but won't be stuck at the same level and can advance some. Large guilds won't move all that much faster but get as much benefit from it as small guilds.

I am not sure why Turbine thinks this is a risk to its revenue stream - they must not be factoring in the value of lost customers which I would argue is much more of a problem as small guilds drive the lfm system. This will only cause more player loss as people that can live with the guild system but rely on the lfm system also leave. It may not be a major domino effect, but it is a little domino effect and definitely negative for Turbine and their bottom line.

Turbine is missing a significant problem by not factoring in the impact of all this on the lfm system.

[Dandonk]

Thank you for the flowers, Slarden, even if completely undeserved. Let´s rejoyce on the day the renown decay finally is history. Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign for at least some official note from Turbine. Of course, I would rejoyce on Turbine doing this very small Change to their variables: SetActiveGuildMemberForDecayCount=0.

Oh, yes, that would be a nice and quick change indeed*.

And it -was- a good thing you posted that thread. It got the issue a bit of awareness Again. That was good :)


* Unless, of course, Turbine has, for some reason, decided to divide something by active guild member accounts. That could be.... interesting....

[UurlockYgmeov]

This seems like the easiest solution - it changes the decay multiplier from 20 to 10 for all guilds. Small guilds will still move at a slow pace but won't be stuck at the same level and can advance some. Large guilds won't move all that much faster but get as much benefit from it as small guilds.

I am not sure why Turbine thinks this is a risk to its revenue stream - they must not be factoring in the value of lost customers which I would argue is much more of a problem as small guilds drive the lfm system. This will only cause more player loss as people that can live with the guild system but rely on the lfm system also leave. It may not be a major domino effect, but it is a little domino effect and definitely negative for Turbine and their bottom line.

Turbine is missing a significant problem by not factoring in the impact of all this on the lfm system.

Changing the static variable from 20 to 10 is not a solution - just slides it around. If they do that (which I am totally against - fix it period not further kludge it) then it should be 1.

If turbine wants revenue - add professions like NWO - a single booster pack costs around 15$ and gives only a couple of things. They make money - DDO is a cash cow that just had twins.

[slarden]

This was a relatively simple change we could try make without bringing down a server, today instead of months from now. We're still happy to hear ways to manage guilds of different sizes reasonably while also not motivating guilds to kick players.

We know there's some players who have likely spent as much or more time thinking about these things as we have individually. Feel free to discuss pros and cons, such as whether or not 1000 player guilds reaching and staying at level 100 is a problem that needs solving.

It's appreciated that you made changes that are allowing some guilds to advance 30 levels in a few months due to massive decay reductions.

When this change was first made, it was implied this is what could be done immediately without bringing down a server. You referred to "months from now" and it's now been several months. There has been no communication about why we need decay at all now that you've effectively removed it for large guilds.

We've given plenty of ideas on managing guilds sizes and I fail to see how getting rid of decay motivates guilds to kick players. The only thing that motivates people to kick members is decay itself.

You've never even told us whether this change is permanent. You implied changes would be coming for us, but seem to have abandoned this project with small guilds still struggling.

Please give us an update.

[Dandonk]

You've never even told us whether this change is permanent. You implied changes would be coming for us, but seem to have abandoned this project with small guilds still struggling.

Please give us an update.

/signed

Come on, Turbine, it's been months now. Give us some kind of insight into where you are going, what you are thinking about and what the time frame is.

[Dandonk]

It's not fair. We still feel it's better to address some of the problem now instead of none of the problem. This isn't expected to address all problems immediately. We're sorry some players are still waiting.

Hey, Vargouille, it's me again. We're still waiting. Any news? Any plans? Any word? Anything at all?

[Nestroy]

Nice to see that there are still Mods (namely Cordovan) online from time to time, i only to close some necro thread.

Sad to see that there is still no reaction from Turbine...

[Ivan_Milic]

Remove decay, its stupid idea.

[SofiaNRage]

Greetings! We are putting forth modifications currently trying out some temporary adjustments to the Guild Renown system and monitoring the outcome and feedback this week. The intent is to address concerns from guilds and guild leaders regarding the impact of optimizing guild size in order to gain or maintain guild levels. We’ll be making additional balance changes that we think you and your guildmates will appreciate, but for now we have applied the changes without downtime. As of today, you will notice two changes to your renown rates:


Renown decay no longer takes guild size into account. This should ease the pressure for guild leaders to “kick” members from the guild to offset daily renown decay rates. Renown decay now only takes a guild’s level into consideration rather than its size.
Renown ransack has been increased. Previously when a guild earned levels in a day, it would gradually reduce the renown drop rates. We’ve increased the rate so that a guild can only earn roughly 3 levels in a single day. This should prevent large guilds from completely dominating the field in terms of levels per-day.


If decay is only going to be based upon guild level, then guilds that have very few members will never be able to overcome the daily decay after reaching about 40th lvl it seems, have to calculate new system to be sure. This ssems very biased towards large guilds. Maybe Turbine is trying to eliminate all the guilds of 1-2 members.

[Nestroy]

If decay is only going to be based upon guild level, then guilds that have very few members will never be able to overcome the daily decay after reaching about 40th lvl it seems, have to calculate new system to be sure. This ssems very biased towards large guilds. Maybe Turbine is trying to eliminate all the guilds of 1-2 members.

If they want to eliminate a certain guild size, they could...

a) ... clearly communicate this. And then implement the changes.
b) ... better guide the process by bonus / decay in order to save their player base from collateral damage.
c) ... have thought of a better system than the current in place. This current system in regard of eliminating too small guilds is a misserable fail. All it was successful with was alienating the player and fan base.

The current system more looks like a ripp-off system where a lot of small guilds wanting to keep up with larger guilds need to invest real money (for pots). A large guild does not need to invest. They only need to keep their player base fairly active. If daily renown decay per capita for a large guild of 500 is 20, the same decay per capita for a guild of 5 is 2,000. 20 renown is just running through one quest. No rewards need to be taken, just 4 times renown for kills. Any chest rewards are purely optional and anything more than 10 minutes of zerging as well. Meanwhile 2,000 decay, even when factoring in the guild size bonus, means about 10 heroic deeds. Per capita. So deducted from the current system in place, eliminating a certain guild size clearly was not the intention of the devs. On the true intentions we can only guess. But I am fairly sure the intention of gauging money out of the players was involved.

[FrostBeard]

Would love to see an improved administration GUI for guild leaders and officers introduced and tested also.

Example:

http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild

It would be good to know which character belongs to whom. for larger guilds.

perhaps an Alias field

[Dandonk]

Sad to see that there is still no reaction from Turbine...

Indeed.

We're not going away, Turbine. Talk to us.

[Tshober]

Turbine has announced a "vacation from renown decay for all guilds" until August 19. An interesting event that will serve quite well as a trial for the elimination of decay entirely. Turbine can gather data on the effect it will have on guilds and on DDO store sales without completely committing to it yet. Nice move, Turbine! This is a welcome trial run!

[Nestroy]

Turbine has announced a "vacation from renown decay for all guilds" until August 19. An interesting event that will serve quite well as a trial for the elimination of decay entirely. Turbine can gather data on the effect it will have on guilds and on DDO store sales without completely committing to it yet. Nice move, Turbine! This is a welcome trial run!

It is perfectly well the best solution. Everybody has the possibility to try, Players and Turbine alike.

As long as pot sales are not hurt (or even grow) there will be no reason to turn back on decay after August 19th. Or perhaps this is when a completely new guild system will hit the game with the up-coming U19 + expansion pack.

[Dandonk]

It is perfectly well the best solution. Everybody has the possibility to try, Players and Turbine alike.

As long as pot sales are not hurt (or even grow) there will be no reason to turn back on decay after August 19th. Or perhaps this is when a completely new guild system will hit the game with the up-coming U19 + expansion pack.

Let us hope that this decay vacation will be permanent, it really would be for the best.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Let us hope that this decay vacation will be permanent, it really would be for the best.

I agree.

Am also hoping that another dev will step forward and announce in the Lamdaland forums the new and improved (or at least finished) guild system (one that is size neutral) soon.

[MrMime]

Ok, soc with the break from DRD I thought it would be a good time to clean house. I have noticed that the Recent Departures have not dropped off like they should after 14days (its been almost 3weeks). Is this in conection with the DRD freeze?? If it is and the 14day timer kicks back on with the DRD on Aug 19th, we are goina be screwd for the next 2weeks after. I had the formula for the Decay rate figured out but now after reading this thread with the changes that are coming im confussed again O_o.

so, im trying to figure out why my RD's are not dropping off after 14days?? and is the current formula going to chane from what it is now ((MAS#+10)x guild size modifier)?? if so how may this affect my current situation come the 19th of Aug., How bad are we screwd?? its gona suck loosing a ton of hard earned renown.

Any insight to this is welcomed :) but would like to hear from a dev on this as well :). Thanks in advance :)

[UurlockYgmeov]

should be fixed with the patch (3) today.

[MuleAxe]

This particular issue may be fixed, but I’m curious what will be done about lost renown during this time. The decay freeze was given to cover previous problems, so it shouldn’t be seen as a “blanket fix” for past and future issues. Come to think of it, why are guilds being penalized twice for guild members leaving anyway (10-25% renown loss and +1 member for 2 weeks) – challenging enough being a small guild; love the logic of making it even more difficult.

[UurlockYgmeov]

*sigh* no love for the guild system....

[slarden]

This particular issue may be fixed, but I’m curious what will be done about lost renown during this time. The decay freeze was given to cover previous problems, so it shouldn’t be seen as a “blanket fix” for past and future issues. Come to think of it, why are guilds being penalized twice for guild members leaving anyway (10-25% renown loss and +1 member for 2 weeks) – challenging enough being a small guild; love the logic of making it even more difficult.

The mechanics are to discourage booting members unless it's really necessary.

[UurlockYgmeov]

The mechanics are to discourage booting members unless it's really necessary.

Slarden is correct.

[Ivan_Milic]

The mechanics are to discourage booting members unless it's really necessary.

And to be careful who you invite to your guild and you better be sure they are going to be active.

[UurlockYgmeov]

And to be careful who you invite to your guild and you better be sure they are going to be active.

This only means something to smaller guilds rather than for guilds with more than 50 members.

We really do need a probationary guild invitation system.

[whiteline]

I have a friend in a guild where the Leader has not been on for 3 years and any officers for more than 1 year as a member he can't invite new members or anything else any hope for that guild

[UurlockYgmeov]

I have a friend in a guild where the Leader has not been on for 3 years and any officers for more than 1 year as a member he can't invite new members or anything else any hope for that guild

well there is supposed to be a way to usurp a defunct leader. I would file in game help request, and an email request - unless you are VIP - then call them.

But probably no. Time to find a new guild.

[MuleAxe]

And to be careful who you invite to your guild and you better be sure they are going to be active.

One or the other is all I'm asking for. If they go inactive, the guild should not be penalized for booting them.
As it is, it's better to let them go inactive and leave em there.

[unacceptable]

I just wanted to thank the dev team and the producers for the guild decay summer break. We had a guildy return to the game when we told him there was no decay. He's been an active player that is on almost every day after barely logging on for the past 8 months. It mattered alot to him and the rest of us.

We were able to purchase a ship for astral shards after being stuck for so long.

If decay returns I would like to make the following suggestions:

1) Lower the amount for all guilds or maybe only guilds with less than 20 people. it's just too much for us but it seems ok for bigger guilds. We like to take our time in the dungeons and don't want to have to rush to fight decay.

2) Provide a decay break whenever a festival is active since we don't get much renown from those.

Thank you.

[Stoner81]

Would love to see an improved administration GUI for guild leaders and officers introduced and tested also.

Example:

http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild

It would be good to know which character belongs to whom. for larger guilds.

perhaps an Alias field

I use the comment field in my friend list for this but having on the guild page would be beyond epic!#

Stoner81.

[eris2323]

Thank you for the decay break.

Now, only two steps left.

1) Keep the decay turned off forever.

2) Fire any of your employees who come up with such game-destroying, community-withering ideas as this in the future.

3) Make a permanent note on the employees record who came up with these ideas, and watch him carefully; perhaps put him in charge of oh, I don't know... texture cleanup for the high-res client, and keep him or her away from game-system designs and anything 'fun' related.

Problem solved.

[FrostBeard]

Its pretty clear the guild system needs an overhaul.

a 43 page thread on suggestions and disgruntled remarks.

really it is up to the people in charge to make this happen.

[Dandonk]

So, any news on this? The decay break is advertised to end very soon.

[unacceptable]

In case you missed this from the Shadowfell is shadowdone post:

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/422332-Shadowfell-is-Shadowdone#post5065738

[Dandonk]

In case you missed this from the Shadowfell is shadowdone post:

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/422332-Shadowfell-is-Shadowdone#post5065738

This is indeed good news. I'll wait with the jubilation, though, until it's officially official, so to speak.

[Arnez]

Guild Decay- I know of no plans to change it from the way it is on live now. I heard some hallway discussions about some small decay for the top 10 levels but I don't know of any concrete plans.


Waitaminute- perhaps this means something else. At first I interpreted it as "Currently Guild Renown Decay is shut off and will stay that way until we come up with concrete plans."

But really it could mean "Going back to the same formula right before the summer break."

I guess that depends on if anyone experienced Decay today- Anyone? I'll admit- I was too focused on what to do with my enhancements and whether or not to get the expansion to simply write down my Renown before the servers went down.

[unacceptable]

Waitaminute- perhaps this means something else. At first I interpreted it as "Currently Guild Renown Decay is shut off and will stay that way until we come up with concrete plans."

But really it could mean "Going back to the same formula right before the summer break."

I guess that depends on if anyone experienced Decay today- Anyone? I'll admit- I was too focused on what to do with my enhancements and whether or not to get the expansion to simply write down my Renown before the servers went down.

I don't believe decay is turned back on. When he refers to there possibly being some decay for the top levels, I think he is confirming it will stay off for everyone else. I am not online when decay hits so I can't tell for sure, but we haven't moved backwards so i think it's off. It is interesting that they didn't make any official announcement for something that is such good news, but perhaps that was the announcement.

Between the goodwill and the ability to sell more ships this is just a pure win for Turbine.

[Dandonk]

I am not online when decay hits so I can't tell for sure, but we haven't moved backwards so i think it's off.

I haven't noticed any decay setting in, either, but I haven't written down the numbers, so to speak.

[Oxarhamar]

I haven't noticed any decay setting in, either, but I haven't written down the numbers, so to speak.

I have am generally online when decay hits and I haven't noticed any decay.

We are guild lvl 88 with about 28 active members when decay was on we were getting hit and hard... I would have noticed if we got hit again

[GrimGus]

Thank you for the decay break.

Now, only two steps left.

1) Keep the decay turned off forever.

2) Fire any of your employees who come up with such game-destroying, community-withering ideas as this in the future.

3) Make a permanent note on the employees record who came up with these ideas, and watch him carefully; perhaps put him in charge of oh, I don't know... texture cleanup for the high-res client, and keep him or her away from game-system designs and anything 'fun' related.

Problem solved.

^ this

[Divine_Outlander]

^ this

there should NOT BE any guild decay. why? because people are to hard to MAKE play. it is a game.
if there is something for guild decay then there should be something for character decay.
same difference!
i play many hours each day. if i don't, this means i have a LIFE TOO! there are ways to make a game
a game without being a game spoiler.

not sure where the post for this is but here goes!

been playing since 2010 and its been over 3 years. seen many changes that i dont like but deal with. butt????
i've heard through the grape vine that TR'n will cause you to lose Tome abilities and epic destinies reset.
***????? i BOUGHT DDO POINTS with MY MONEY and used them points to purchase these highly costing Tomes.
for god sakes.. this is an icon i pay for that is used in a game. no game.. nothing to show for it and you want
to take these away from me when i TR? I DO NOT THINK SO!
if you do, in which i have no control over. but i do have control on what game i spend MY MONEY ON!
i bought every pack that is available.. bought character slots.. bought tomes of supreme abilities for several toons
i have and the tomes consisted of +1, +2, +3 and +4's. i have every email saved that i get by using the ddo
store. i also pay to play on top of all that. i buy countless passes. i have a level 75 guild.
leave a good thing alone when ya have it. and that is to you ddo.
good day/night!

[slarden]

there should NOT BE any guild decay. why? because people are to hard to MAKE play. it is a game.
if there is something for guild decay then there should be something for character decay.
same difference!
i play many hours each day. if i don't, this means i have a LIFE TOO! there are ways to make a game
a game without being a game spoiler.

not sure where the post for this is but here goes!

been playing since 2010 and its been over 3 years. seen many changes that i dont like but deal with. butt????
i've heard through the grape vine that TR'n will cause you to lose Tome abilities and epic destinies reset.
***????? i BOUGHT DDO POINTS with MY MONEY and used them points to purchase these highly costing Tomes.
for god sakes.. this is an icon i pay for that is used in a game. no game.. nothing to show for it and you want
to take these away from me when i TR? I DO NOT THINK SO!
if you do, in which i have no control over. but i do have control on what game i spend MY MONEY ON!
i bought every pack that is available.. bought character slots.. bought tomes of supreme abilities for several toons
i have and the tomes consisted of +1, +2, +3 and +4's. i have every email saved that i get by using the ddo
store. i also pay to play on top of all that. i buy countless passes. i have a level 75 guild.
leave a good thing alone when ya have it. and that is to you ddo.
good day/night!

Then I think you will be happy about everything:

1) Guild decay is gone and likely isn't coming back except maybe the top 10 levels.
2) When you TR you don't lose tomes or destinies. If you do it's a bug - contact account support right away and they will fix it

[Grecan]

Then I think you will be happy about everything:

1) Guild decay is gone and likely isn't coming back except maybe the top 10 levels.
2) When you TR you don't lose tomes or destinies. If you do it's a bug - contact account support right away and they will fix it
Good news! I'm in the process of getting back to the game after 2,5 years of absence and see a lot changes...
The way they had implemented guild renown and decay was one of the major reasons my satisfation from the game was greatly reduced back then.
I'm a laid-back guy, i wanna play the game without feeling pressed to WORK for my guild... i felt like i had to increase my "production rate"

Nice to hear that about the tomes when you TR, too, although that means i have a BtC tome that's no use for my TR now



I use the comment field in my friend list for this but having on the guild page would be beyond epic!#

Stoner81.
I used to do that, too, but imo the friends list is very limited... it should be able to hold much more chars

I have played one character mainly, that i got to lev 20 (cap then). But people i knew made so many alts and it was difficult to keep up with who is who and connect with them :(

[Connman]

although that means i have a BtC tome that's no use for my TR now



You can use those +2 BtC tomes in the crafting hall. Trade them to the crafting vendor for 9 purified eberron shards for crafting. If you are not into crafting might not be a big help for you but at least you can hoard them in a bag for "someday"

I always grab that free tome you get from favor just to crunch it down myself.

[Starla70]

Glad the decay is still off!

[whiteline]

Is there a way for a member of a guild to take control of it when all officers have not been on the game for 3 years.
the guild is The Trading Post on Khyber the leader is needmor

[Aliss7]

Is there a way for a member of a guild to take control of it when all officers have not been on the game for 3 years.

AFAIK, only a named successor can take control of a guild from an inactive guild leader.

[SirValentine]

AFAIK, only a named successor can take control of a guild from an inactive guild leader.

Successor, whether an officer or not. Any officer if both leader and successor inactive.

If all of leader, successor, and all officers are all inactive, you are out of luck.

[Aliss7]

Any officer if both leader and successor inactive.


Is this a new thing? Because about more than a year ago, I was in a guild where the leader was inactive, no successor, and I was an officer. No go when I looked for a way to take guild ownership.

[SirValentine]

Is this a new thing? Because about more than a year ago, I was in a guild where the leader was inactive, no successor, and I was an officer. No go when I looked for a way to take guild ownership.

No...since Update 11 in September 2011. The Release Notes say:



Officers can now usurp a guild after 60 days if there is no successor, or if the successor has been inactive for 60 days.

[The_Human_Cypher]

Thank you for the decay break.

Now, only two steps left.

1) Keep the decay turned off forever.

2) Fire any of your employees who come up with such game-destroying, community-withering ideas as this in the future.

3) Make a permanent note on the employees record who came up with these ideas, and watch him carefully; perhaps put him in charge of oh, I don't know... texture cleanup for the high-res client, and keep him or her away from game-system designs and anything 'fun' related.

Problem solved.

That is three things.