Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

You do say you support eliminating decay, but most people realize Turbine isn't open to that. You haven't offered or agreed to any suggestions about lower decay for small guilds that I've seen.

I have suggested eliminating decay entirely. How do you know Turbine is not open to that? I have been advocating for the removal or massive reduction of renown decay for many months. Up until very recently, I was pretty sure Turbine was not open to that. But now they are testing a system that is a massive reduction in renown decay. You don't know what Turbine is open to, and neither do I.

I have also proposed increasing the small guild bonus percentages, if needed, to keep small and tiny guilds viable and advancing.

The only other suggestion I can remember seeing for reducing the decay on small and tiny guilds was the one you made. But your suggestion involved going back to the old decay system and that I am not open to. The old decay system was just awful. I will not support any plan that can't be built upon the new decay system and forces us back to the old decay system. I am unwilling to undo all the good that has been done. I am perfectly willing to add to that good though.

[Dandonk]

how? how does what my guild does have anything to do with your guild i dont understand

I just stated it - relative value.

[eris2323]

I was warned by someone that Turbine has a loot debuff mechanism and that if I complain about the proposed guild system too much they will assign it to my account. Does anyone know if this is truth or mythology? I was told it was primarily used on people that submit many tickets or hassle GMs, but it's also used when the devs don't like what they see on the forums.

I got a +4 tome recently so I assume if such a mechanism exists, I am not on the list.... yet. I would be curious if anyone else knows about it - I never heard of it before.

Now we're talking... a shadowy conspiracy... tell us more...

Who warned you? Did they have any special or occult symbols on their outfits?

[theslimshady]

I just stated it - relative value.

alrighty then

[Gremmlynn]

Obviously, some large guilds have issues getting people to play. Otherwise we wouldn't hear the large guilds being so upset about the decay they were having.Um, why would they even want to try. People will play as often as desire meets opportunity which seems to be the exact right amount of time to play.


It's a game, not an obligation and the guild system should support that.

[Dandonk]

Um, why would they even want to try. People will play as often as desire meets opportunity which seems to be the exact right amount of time to play.


It's a game, not an obligation and the guild system should support that.

Precisely. So why are small guilds still under the old system?

[Gremmlynn]

Indeed, some of us have the same problem. But then the large guilds with casuals got a huge boost, while the rest of us got left behind.Well I'm for getting rid of that problem by completely eliminating decay.

I'd be all for a per player based system if it wasn't so easy for the most active players to game such by cutting the less active off from viable guilds to a large extent.

[jhadden30]

Even though this wasn't directed at me I will comment. It's a very fair point, but those of us in small guilds feel that there is a double standard as we are expected to cover a large decay tax while those in large guilds don't have to. Believe it or not people small guilds also have real life issues come up and some even have babies, holidays and deployments.

.

Exactly, I have a family and I work 60 hours a week so why should I still have grind renown to cover decay and advance? Turbine, please just eliminate decay all together.

[Gremmlynn]

Well from the previous posts, keeping everyone interested in playing for one thing and striving towards a goal for another. Isn't it the guild leaders (manager's) job to keep a guild functioning and moving forward? Or is just a gigantic free for all?This game is rather lacking in guild based goals other than that next level and that should simply be a side effect of playing the game. But keeping everybody interested in playing is mostly accomplished by trying to have enough critical mass to ensure that, at least during peak times, there are enough on-line on any particular day to provide others to play with and enforcing just enough discipline to keep things civilized (basically enough to remind everyone that there is some accountability for being a jerk).

[jhadden30]

This game is rather lacking in guild based goals other than that next level and that should simply be a side effect of playing the game.

Your right, because that is really the only goal set in place which sadly promotes leveling over playing. Good point.

[Gremmlynn]

It would be great if it supported that concept for all guild sizes instead of assessing a massive decay tax on only small guilds.I'm all for the complete elimination of the tax, or even the whole, drama inducing, guild leveling system itself.

That way maybe we can all form and run our guilds how ever we like for whatever purposes we choose. Because, to be honest, I don't even understand what the purpose your guild, as you describe it, serves and it's likely others feel the same way about mine. Best if we could just discount it completely.

[Gremmlynn]

Precisely. So why are small guilds still under the old system?You got me? I didn't make the change or decay would have gone away entirely.

I wont even try to understand what purpose a small casual guild serves (to me it's like a cloud of hydrogen that hasn't the critical mass to form into a star), but if it works for you I'm all for a solution that let's you do your thing.

[Dandonk]

You got me? I didn't make the change or decay would have gone away entirely.

I wont even try to understand what purpose a small casual guild serves (to me it's like a cloud of hydrogen that hasn't the critical mass to form into a star), but if it works for you I'm all for a solution that let's you do your thing.

Thank you.

(though I do not appreciate your comment about small guilds... should I call large guilds "mobs" instead? I think not)

[Gremmlynn]

Thank you.

(though I do not appreciate your comment about small guilds... should I call large guilds "mobs" instead? I think not)If that's how you see them, go for it. But please explain why you see them that way.

Personally I see the pug scene as a mob, as it lacks the threat of expulsion to enforce at least trying to act as a team and enforce biting one's tongue when that doesn't work out. My large guilds have that going for them anyway.

[slarden]

You got me? I didn't make the change or decay would have gone away entirely.

I wont even try to understand what purpose a small casual guild serves (to me it's like a cloud of hydrogen that hasn't the critical mass to form into a star), but if it works for you I'm all for a solution that let's you do your thing.

It's hard for a few of you to go very long without taking a shot at small guilds. If you run high level raids at higher difficulty levels I think you will see very high representation from small guilds. They are obviously doing something right because the members are well trained and know how to contribute effectively to parties. That didn't happen by accident.

Ultimately much of the social aspect of the game involves actually running the content, building a good party and sharing ideas. That doesn't have to happen in guild chat. In fact many people from large guilds are active in channels on Sarlona. So even folks in large guilds understand the larger social structure of the game and aren't isolated to the confines of their guild.

[Dandonk]

If that's how you see them, go for it. But please explain why you see them that way.

Personally I see the pug scene as a mob, as it lacks the threat of expulsion to enforce at least trying to act as a team and enforce biting one's tongue when that doesn't work out. My large guilds have that going for them anyway.

How can people in large guilds know each other well? I know everyone in my guild well, we've played together for years, having fun, getting to know each. We're not just 1 in 200 accounts that noone really knows of, anyway.

[eris2323]

How can people in large guilds know each other well? I know everyone in my guild well, we've played together for years, having fun, getting to know each. We're not just 1 in 200 accounts that noone really knows of, anyway.

Getting to know each other is part of the fun for some of us.

We've also played together for years; having fun - or at the very least, combatting the old, evil decay system, which I think was one of the worst decisions the game designers ever made.

Luckily they seem to agree; woopsies.

Time for a change.

A change for the better; for the vast majority of us.

If Tiny guilds need to work (the same as they always did) or harder, I have no complaints about that; seems logical to me.

[Dandonk]

Getting to know each other is part of the fun for some of us.

We've also played together for years; having fun - or at the very least, combatting the old, evil decay system, which I think was one of the worst decisions the game designers ever made.

Luckily they seem to agree; woopsies.

Time for a change.

A change for the better; for the vast majority of us.

If Tiny guilds need to work (the same as they always did) or harder, I have no complaints about that; seems logical to me.

As long as OTHER people have to work harder, it's OK? Good one, I like that sentiment.

How can you know 200 other people as well as 10 others? You can't.

[eris2323]

Gremmlynn is just bating you. If you look at the thread (and I pity you if you read it all) you will see the same 5-6 people picking arguments and starting fights whenever someone from a small guild raises a valid concern or idea. By doing so it effectively buries the good idea in pages and pages of arguments about guild size. It's a pity because there are some good ideas and concerns raised. Turbine will likely only notice the fighting and stop reading.

Riiiiiiiiight.

SO, about that conspiracy you were talking about... the one about the secret loot debuff for people that argue on the forums...

Where'd you hear that?

*wink**wink* *nudge* *nudge*

conspiracy theories rule.

[eris2323]

As long as OTHER people have to work harder, it's OK? Good one, I like that sentiment.

How can you know 200 other people as well as 10 others? You can't.

They don't have to work harder; just the same as they always have.

[theslimshady]

How can people in large guilds know each other well? I know everyone in my guild well, we've played together for years, having fun, getting to know each. We're not just 1 in 200 accounts that noone really knows of, anyway.

its fairly easy if i have 20 friends my wife the other coleader has 20 friends thats 42 if each of them has 5 friends thats 202 any questions---- my friends and her freinds are officers thats a fairly easy guild structure now if each of them players are premuim at 4 toons thats 808 against the 1000 capped toon limit and alot of us have been playing 3 or more years so we by far have more then 4 toons {i have 20 something }
meeting and hanging out with 20 close running buddies really after 3 years is not even alot imo so i really think peoples idea of how all large guilds are is extremely biased
and yes the toon cap and level walls caused a real promblem i mean some peeps had to recarn toons to try artie and druid because there was no space in guild or kick to make room or leave guild to play or i have to kick inactive friend who i know rl came up or they have to kick there friend it was a real mess and i am really happy its gone now

[Dandonk]

They don't have to work harder; just the same as they always have.

Relative values, once again.

[Gremmlynn]

It's hard for a few of you to go very long without taking a shot at small guilds. If you run high level raids at higher difficulty levels I think you will see very high representation from small guilds. They are obviously doing something right because the members are well trained and know how to contribute effectively to parties. That didn't happen by accident.

Ultimately much of the social aspect of the game involves actually running the content, building a good party and sharing ideas. That doesn't have to happen in guild chat. In fact many people from large guilds are active in channels on Sarlona. So even folks in large guilds understand the larger social structure of the game and aren't isolated to the confines of their guild.Sorry if you saw that as a shot at small guilds, it was more an explanation of how I see small casual guilds, as I'm in a large casual guild that's only large so that on any given evening we might have enough on to run a raid group.

As to your second point. Not having to group with people that are not from my guild is the main reason I'm in a guild.

[Gremmlynn]

How can people in large guilds know each other well? I know everyone in my guild well, we've played together for years, having fun, getting to know each. We're not just 1 in 200 accounts that noone really knows of, anyway.Why would they have to? In the 3+ years I've been playing the game I'd say I might know one person I've played with somewhat well personalty while I know how many others well enough to anticipate and compliment their game play with mine. Which is generally as well as I want to know them and definitely as well as I want most of them to know me.

[Dandonk]

Why would they have to? In the 3+ years I've been playing the game I'd say I might know one person I've played with somewhat well personalty while I know how many others well enough to anticipate and compliment their game play with mine. Which is generally as well as I want to know them and definitely as well as I want most of them to know me.

Well, an impersonal gathering like that is not a guild to me - but then, the goal of the original system was that there was room for us all.

[Gremmlynn]

Well, an impersonal gathering like that is not a guild to me - but then, the goal of the original system was that there was room for us all.It's as personal as the average work environment, which IMO is about right. Of course there is nothing preventing people from becoming closer and they often do. I just see no reason they should feel obligated to and find less drama happens if they don't.

[Dandonk]

It's as personal as the average work environment, which IMO is about right. Of course there is nothing preventing people from becoming closer and they often do. I just see no reason they should feel obligated to and find less drama happens if they don't.

Indeed. And to each his/her own - I just wish the renown system would give equal opportunity, too.

[Thayion516]

Dev post from General Discussion Forums:


We're happier with the changes currently in compared to before. The system running today isn't expected to be final. Further changes aren't yet imminent.

So there ya go. Change was in the intended direction, AKA WAI, read into it as you see fit. And the current system is going to be around for a while.

[Dandonk]

Dev post from General Discussion Forums:



So there ya go. Change was in the intended direction, AKA WAI, read into it as you see fit. And the current system is going to be around for a while.

And small guilds are going to be shafted until they may see fit, at some point in 3 years, to do something more about renown. Yay.

Not.

[jhadden30]

Just for good measure, here's my idea one more time:

Here's a solution: why not just dissolve guild levels and sizes and just let everyone pay for ships and buffs with turbine points or platinum or even favor for the matter? That would stop making it a gigantic competition and bragging rights showdown. This way we could all get back to playing and having fun which is what we're supposed to be doing in the first place. Guilds would still exist of course, but just eliminate all the hassle. A guild is supposed to be almost the same thing as a social network, nobody has this much hassle logging on to their facebook. Just something to consider.

[theslimshady]

again thank you ddo this has removed so much stress about renown decay for my large guild
i got to enjoy seeing my players in mabar and even in pvp enjoying themselves instead of deep down feeling guilty watching the great decay bleed

[Dandonk]

again thank you ddo this has removed so much stress about renown decay for my large guild
i got to enjoy seeing my players in mabar and even in pvp enjoying themselves instead of deep down feeling guilty watching the great decay bleed

And this IS good.

I just wish it were the same for small guilds.

[Chaos000]

And this IS good.

I just wish it were the same for small guilds.

I think we all do. The question is how much. A fair adjustment would be comparing the smallest guild that would get the maximum amount of benefit from this change against the smallest large guild that will not get any benefit from this change.

We "could" talk about how unfair it is for guilds of 500 getting a significant decay tax reduction compared to a guild of 51 players who also does not get get any guild renown size bonus that smaller guilds do. Initially I felt bumping up the renown size bonus was the right move but now... not sure if the renown size bonus is more of a hinderance than a help unless guilds of 51+ also start to get a renown size bonus to compensate for the larger theoretical advantage larger guilds have in renown gain. Slippery slope. Once decay or bonus starts accounting for size you instantly start to have an incentive for booting players.

Eliminate the bonus. Reduce the decay for guild sizes that currently get a bonus. Leave the rest of the system alone.

[theslimshady]

I think we all do. The question is how much. A fair adjustment would be comparing the smallest guild that would get the maximum amount of benefit from this change against the smallest large guild that will not get any benefit from this change.

We "could" talk about how unfair it is for guilds of 500 getting a significant decay tax reduction compared to a guild of 51 players who also does not get get any guild renown size bonus that smaller guilds do. Initially I felt bumping up the renown size bonus was the right move but now... not sure if the renown size bonus is more of a hinderance than a help unless guilds of 51+ also start to get a renown size bonus to compensate for the larger theoretical advantage larger guilds have in renown gain. Slippery slope. Once decay or bonus starts accounting for size you instantly start to have an incentive for booting players.

Eliminate the bonus. Reduce the decay for guild sizes that currently get a bonus. Leave the rest of the system alone. i still dont get why they just dont turn off decay for guilds under 24 members and keep bonuses the way they are
just remove the decay from all small guilds period and they still can get renown and not go backwards at all seems you could code that with whatever code identified small guilds so in the end it would be

1-24 no decay small guild bonus
25-50 current decay and renown bonus
51-1000 current decay and no bonus
seems like a easy and fair tweek
ending balance is
small has no decay and the high bonus offsets the large numbers and cas idle problems
meduim gets renown bonas to offset large numbers
large just gets numbers

[eris2323]

i still dont get why they just dont turn off decay for guilds under 24 members and keep bonuses the way they are
just remove the decay from all small guilds period and they still can get renown and not go backwards at all seems you could code that with whatever code identified small guilds so in the end it would be

1-24 no decay small guild bonus
25-50 current decay and renown bonus
51-1000 current decay and no bonus
seems like a easy and fair tweek
ending balance is
small has no decay and the high bonus offsets the large numbers and cas idle problems
meduim gets renown bonas to offset large numbers
large just gets numbers

So anyone could build a guild to level 100, kick out everyone, and have their own guild-of-one for the rest of time (no decay) at level 100?

Uh... no... not fair at all, and would encourage bad behaviour.

[theslimshady]

So anyone could build a guild to level 100, kick out everyone, and have their own guild-of-one for the rest of time (no decay) at level 100?

Uh... no... not fair at all, and would encourage bad behaviour.

again easy fix highest number platform you acheive is permenant so if you cross small to meduim or meduim to large even if you drop down you guild is still considered whatever highest teir you hit that would discourage that forever

[eris2323]

again easy fix highest number platform you acheive is permenant so if you cross small to meduim or meduim to large even if you drop down you guild is still considered whatever highest teir you hit that would discourage that forever

If *THEY* don't have to pay decay, why do I have to pay decay?

Still don't like it.

[theslimshady]

If *THEY* don't have to pay decay, why do I have to pay decay?

Still don't like it.
just because it keeps large and meduim guilds honest so they dont abuse the system and if you got 24 or more people active in a guild you shouldnt have to much to worry about any more anyway

[eris2323]

just because it keeps large and meduim guilds honest so they dont abuse the system and if you got 24 or more people active in a guild you shouldnt have to much to worry about any more anyway

I don't require outside help to keep our guild 'honest'.

Why should our guild pay renown, when people under 24 accounts shouldn't?

Not supporting any system that removes renown decay for only tiny guilds.

[Missing_Minds]

Not supporting any system that removes renown decay for only tiny guilds.
I don't support guild decay at all. This is a video game. Decay does not support fun what so ever.
Gamers are willing to work for the guild. Many are willing to pay $$ as well.

But don't tax us, as that simulates real life too much. Real life is what we are trying to escape for a time.

Or heck.. allow us to use gems, those absolutely WORTHLESS rocks in the game, to buy renown. The guild ship guy currently is the ONLY thing in the game to take gems of any form (astral diamonds), baring the adamantine ore trader, and Maraud the Mines trader.

[eris2323]

I don't support guild decay at all. This is a video game. Decay does not support fun what so ever.
Gamers are willing to work for the guild. Many are willing to pay $$ as well.

But don't tax us, as that simulates real life too much. Real life is what we are trying to escape for a time.

Or heck.. allow us to use gems, those absolutely WORTHLESS rocks in the game, to buy renown. The guild ship guy currently is the ONLY thing in the game to take gems of any form (astral diamonds), baring the adamantine ore trader, and Maraud the Mines trader.

Well, if they for some reason decided to get rid of decay for EVERYONE, I wouldn't complain. At all. I think our entire guild has had about enough of decay.

Saying the word decay now triggers a kind of pavlovian reflex - except it makes a little vomit climb up into my mouth each time.

But not just for tiny guilds. Never.

[Missing_Minds]

Saying the word decay now triggers a kind of pavlovian reflex - except it makes a little vomit climb up into my mouth each time.

*ponders* let me help you get a new keyboard then.


decay, decay, decals, decay decay decay, decake, decay, mushroom, decay, decay, decay, dabears, decay decay...


Got that new keyboard ordered yet? :)

[eris2323]

*ponders* let me help you get a new keyboard then.


decay, decay, decals, decay decay decay, decake, decay, mushroom, decay, decay, decay, dabears, decay decay...


Got that new keyboard ordered yet? :)

what you got against mushrooms????????

[Missing_Minds]

what you got against mushrooms????????

Badgers.

[akiraproject24]

Sorry if you saw that as a shot at small guilds, it was more an explanation of how I see small casual guilds, as I'm in a large casual guild that's only large so that on any given evening we might have enough on to run a raid group.

As to your second point. Not having to group with people that are not from my guild is the main reason I'm in a guild.

Many folks in small guilds did their time in a large guild and broke off with close friends to get away from the drama and politics of many a large guild. Not to mention many large guilds are filled with pikers that cant lead anything and up being carried through everything by a smaller competent group within that large guild. That smaller group being the ones that get fed up and make said small guild.

[Zess-wolf]

I would like to know if there is some bug with very small guilds. because the decay has gone much higher since this change, my guild has 3 people only, and we´ve managed to just hit 80 by the time of the change, and now we are struggling just to keep 80,

is there anything wrong? cause the decay has gone much higher than it was.

Just wondering, cause we cant barely keep level 80 and worried about it :(

Zess

[Arnez]

<Slow Golf Clap>

Well done Large Guilds, well done.

[Thayion516]

I would like to know if there is some bug with very small guilds. because the decay has gone much higher since this change, my guild has 3 people only, and we´ve managed to just hit 80 by the time of the change, and now we are struggling just to keep 80,

is there anything wrong? cause the decay has gone much higher than it was.

Just wondering, cause we cant barely keep level 80 and worried about it :(

Zess

They set the Membership Variable to zero in the Decay Formula. Mathematically, there was no decay change for guilds under size of 10 members.

Basically the previous was level multiplier x 20 (as in max(guildsize*10)+10 giving a Minimum Value 10 with unlimited Maximum, was changed to max(null*10)+10) resulting in a 10 member Constant Value.

DDO Wiki has the hard numbers and new formula here. http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

Just curious tho, how often do you 3 play? Like i play prolly 10-15 hours a week and bring in 20,000+ with no bonus. Yourself?

[DocBenway]

I would like to know if there is some bug with very small guilds. because the decay has gone much higher since this change, my guild has 3 people only, and we´ve managed to just hit 80 by the time of the change, and now we are struggling just to keep 80,

is there anything wrong? cause the decay has gone much higher than it was.

Just wondering, cause we cant barely keep level 80 and worried about it :(

Zess

By barely keep 80, do you mean you hit 80 and then decay back to 79 next day only to hit 80 and decay back to 79 next day again? I could see how decay could seem much higher if you are hitting the new renown ransack that cuts the drops as soon as you gain 1 level. I know the amount and frequency of renown for kills and in chests dropped very noticeably the one time we have leveled since this change.

[Gremmlynn]

Many folks in small guilds did their time in a large guild and broke off with close friends to get away from the drama and politics of many a large guild. Not to mention many large guilds are filled with pikers that cant lead anything and up being carried through everything by a smaller competent group within that large guild. That smaller group being the ones that get fed up and make said small guild.That's fine if that small group either plays enough or in a synchronized enough of a fashion to actually see each other more often than not. Otherwise I don't see the point, but then I see guilds as primarily for bringing people together and the other stuff added on (ships, buffs, etc.) as just added fluff.

[slarden]

Turbine, those of us in small guilds are very confused regarding what your future plans are.

Can you please answer the following questions:

1) Why do we need decay in the game at all. Currently decay is only issue for small guilds with the new formula. How does it benefit the game to keep small guilds from leveling? Have you considered completely eliminating decay?
2) Are you trying to discourage small guilds? The current system and lack of information about what future changes are being contemplated is confusing to us.
3) Are you planning on keeping the system "as is" for a long time or do you plan to make changes within the next 6 months. If so are changes to help small guilds with decay in the plans?
4) The original vision was to support guilds of all sizes. Has this vision changed?

We don't know what to do. Please provide some insight into what future (if any) small guilds have.

Thank you.

[Dandonk]

So, are we there yet?

[slarden]

I think this shows just how messed up the current system is, including the increased ransack bonus which serves as a new and additional penalty on small guilds that got none of the benefit associated with his new penalty.

Sarlona crashed a few nights ago and we were hit with double decay for the day even though Turbine's official comments state otherwise. Others have noted the same problem. So our new decay time occurs during the middle of our prime playing time in the evening.

Due to this I was trying to control when we leveled and had nearly 20,000 in renown banked in end rewards to cover our decay and ensure we wouldn't slide backwards due to the renown penalty we will get for gaining a level. I log on realize 2 guildy's have been playing and generated quite a bit of rewown because we just leveled. The only problem is we are going to get hit with decay in 30 minutes and again in 24 hours and 30 minutes. On top of this every player in our guild is hit with an increased guild renown ransack penalty that was created because how easy leveling is now for large guilds.

So I quickly log in and out as various alts to try claim all the banked end rewards before decay hit. I succeed and barely get the renown claimed in time. The only problem is that my estimate of 20k renown decay estimate for 2 days off. Since we gained 1 level our decay in the next 24.5 hours will instead be 25,054 (since it hits twice 24.5 hours after leveling).

So I have to run U16 quests. The two of us got one heroic deed total from the 4 quests we ran. We did not review or look at our end rewards and instead agreed to log in exactly 24 hours after we leveled and 30 minutes before decay hit so that we can avoid sliding back one level. If we claimed our end rewards immediately, we were concerned we would get no renown option since this is what happened the previous time we leveled and were hit with this new guild renown ransack penalty.

Why is it guilds must go through all this. If we didn't plan for and bank renown, there is no possibility we can level without getting caught in a circular loop of level up and then lose a level.

If Turbine is ok with running a test where they effectively remove decay as an issue for large guilds, why are they not ok with running a test period where they remove decay entirely? The argument that decay needs to be eliminated 95% for some guilds, while guilds of <=10 get no renown reduction, but also get a more difficult guild ransack penalty is absolutely non-sensical.

This is a game. Games should be fun and fair. Decay is not fun and this system is not fair.

[Dandonk]

My own guild finally levelled too, the other day. I didn't think the new higher ransack was worth complaining about before, but it does hit hard. Very hard.

[-IPJC-]

As an officer from a small manned guild on Sarlona (Legends of Lore, 6 active members, currently level 77 and still leveling) i have to state that all our guild members are really disappointed if current changes will remain permanent.

It looks like the new guild decay rules supports players to be inactive all the time and log on once a month. How can it be fair to all small manned guilds who have been working hard and have been really active to get leveled and remain high level even with spending turbine points on renown elixirs and such? Its just not fair that a 60 manned guild has the same decay as a 6 manned one. Rules like this stimulate guild leaders and recruiters to basically say yes to anyone who wants to join their guild. Players should realize that if they want a high level guild and the benefits that comes with that, they should work for it and not earn that by just logging on once in a while and take everybody who wants in. Where's the challenge in a system like this? Please Turbine, reward those who have been working hard and earned it.

I hope Turbine decides to change back to the old renown system as soon as possible, if not, and we do go back to the old system, i expect lots and lots more complaints from level 85 guilds who just bought a level 85 airship which they are going to loose because they cant keep up with the renown decay as in the old system.

I wish Turbine lots of wisdom in making a correct decision.

Greets in behalf of Legends of Lore,

Cnok

[Dandonk]

I hope Turbine decides to change back to the old renown system as soon as possible, if not, and we do go back to the old system, i expect lots and lots more complaints from level 85 guilds who just bought a level 85 airship which they are going to loose because they cant keep up with the renown decay as in the old system.

While I appreciate your concerns, who mostly mirror mine, there's a tiny point: I do not believe you lose the level 85 ship even if you decay below 85. (now lose any ship, for that matter)

[McFlay]

1) Why do we need decay in the game at all. Currently decay is only issue for small guilds with the new formula. How does it benefit the game to keep small guilds from leveling? Have you considered completely eliminating decay?

Guild decay is needed because it prevents mass recruit guilds who recruit anybody and everybody from shooting up to level 100 while guilds who do not do this suffer. The original system did a great job of preventing this. Now keep in mind you get most of your buffs in the guild level 60ish range so if you plateaud at 70, you were just crying about epeen really.

It would have been a lot easier to digest if turbine simply added in a no renown feature where you can guild someone, but flag them no renown and they neither gain renown or count towards your guild size for decay/renown bonuses. Instead they implement free pass for large guilds, and screw everyone else.

[theslimshady]

Guild decay is needed because it prevents mass recruit guilds who recruit anybody and everybody from shooting up to level 100 while guilds who do not do this suffer. The original system did a great job of preventing this. Now keep in mind you get most of your buffs in the guild level 60ish range so if you plateaud at 70, you were just crying about epeen really.

It would have been a lot easier to digest if turbine simply added in a no renown feature where you can guild someone, but flag them no renown and they neither gain renown or count towards your guild size for decay/renown bonuses. Instead they implement free pass for large guilds, and screw everyone else.

just being large does not mean a mass recruiting or spammer guild in anyway and is a common misguided statement the fear induced hysteria that was caused by this is years old and is untrue and unwarrented
the idea that a verysmall guild only has to recruit a few members and stay small and be able to progress forward vrs a large guild who must radically change its core was the surface of this issue
to keep this going on falsehoods is unfair for the genral playing base so just
try and understand that the large guilds needed a restructure of the renown system that for so long caused such a high level of strife and althought this change might not be the greatest for a small minorty of that playing public it has been a great releif to long established large guilds across all the servers so by including anything in a statement about rolling
back to the old system of repression i cannot sign on at all i understand guilds under 10 members at this moment are feeling the pinch but talking about putting it back where almost every one outside that margian felt it is not the answer

[McFlay]

just being large does not mean a mass recruiting or spammer guild in anyway and is a common misguided statement the fear induced hysteria that was caused by this is years old and is untrue and unwarrented
the idea that a verysmall guild only has to recruit a few members and stay small and be able to progress forward vrs a large guild who must radically change its core was the surface of this issue
to keep this going on falsehoods is unfair for the genral playing base so just
try and understand that the large guilds needed a restructure of the renown system that for so long caused such a high level of strife and althought this change might not be the greatest for a small minorty of that playing public it has been a great releif to long established large guilds across all the servers so by including anything in a statement about rolling
back to the old system of repression i cannot sign on at all i understand guilds under 10 members at this moment are feeling the pinch but talking about putting it back where almost every one outside that margian felt it is not the answer

Wow bro, why so defensive? I didn't accuse anyone of being a spammer guild, but I do remember quite well that before decay came into play all the largest and highest level guilds around were open invite and recruit everyone possible. Shortly after the inception of decay a lot of those guilds lost tons of levels, splintered into smaller guilds as people realized bigger wasn't always better, or outright dissolved. So no, while its not quite hysteria, because I don't think your average person gets hysterical about ddo, my statements are neither untrue or unwarranted.

[theslimshady]

Wow bro, why so defensive? I didn't accuse anyone of being a spammer guild, but I do remember quite well that before decay came into play all the largest and highest level guilds around were open invite and recruit everyone possible. Shortly after the inception of decay a lot of those guilds lost tons of levels, splintered into smaller guilds as people realized bigger wasn't always better, or outright dissolved. So no, while its not quite hysteria, because I don't think your average person gets hysterical about ddo, my statements are neither untrue or unwarranted.

not defensive just saying the same auto invite fear-mongering what ifs is a shameless tactic and unproductive
and that the system in place is great for the majority of guilds 11-1000 members most guilds even the ones complaing are still moving forward not hitting walls or losing levels
so i feel this outcry on how horrible it is is over hyped and unwarranted

[slarden]

not defensive just saying the same auto invite fear-mongering what ifs is a shameless tactic and unproductive
and that the system in place is great for the majority of guilds 11-1000 members most guilds even the ones complaing are still moving forward not hitting walls or losing levels
so i feel this outcry on how horrible it is is over hyped and unwarranted

The # of guilds with 10 or less members is not small. While I don't have any exact #s I can assure you this is a very significant portion of guilds.

There are plenty of small guilds that stopped moving forward prior to the change and they are still stuck at a level.

[Son_of_the_South]

As an officer from a small manned guild on Sarlona (Legends of Lore, 6 active members, currently level 77 and still leveling) i have to state that all our guild members are really disappointed if current changes will remain permanent.

It looks like the new guild decay rules supports players to be inactive all the time and log on once a month. How can it be fair to all small manned guilds who have been working hard and have been really active to get leveled and remain high level even with spending turbine points on renown elixirs and such? Its just not fair that a 60 manned guild has the same decay as a 6 manned one. Rules like this stimulate guild leaders and recruiters to basically say yes to anyone who wants to join their guild. Players should realize that if they want a high level guild and the benefits that comes with that, they should work for it and not earn that by just logging on once in a while and take everybody who wants in. Where's the challenge in a system like this? Please Turbine, reward those who have been working hard and earned it.

I hope Turbine decides to change back to the old renown system as soon as possible, if not, and we do go back to the old system, i expect lots and lots more complaints from level 85 guilds who just bought a level 85 airship which they are going to loose because they cant keep up with the renown decay as in the old system.

I wish Turbine lots of wisdom in making a correct decision.

Greets in behalf of Legends of Lore,

Cnok

You realise this rant makes you seem rather childish, dont you?

Why isnt it fair that a 60 man guild has the same decay as a 6 man one? What is wrong with recruiting whomever might want to join your guild? You arent really making any logical argument here but rather assumptions based on statements like "not earn that by just logging on once in a while and take everybody who wants in". We have a big guild that often has 15-20 dedicated players on at once and for (at least) a year we stayed at level 63. Since the changes we have cruised to level 65 already.

Thank you for making the right changes Turbine.

[theslimshady]

The # of guilds with 10 or less members is not small. While I don't have any exact #s I can assure you this is a very significant portion of guilds.

There are plenty of small guilds that stopped moving forward prior to the change and they are still stuck at a level.

again i understand that small guilds under 10 members are in need of some kinda attention i even thought my proposal for removing decay for them guilds was a good idea but this attack on large guilds is tiresome at best the idea of comparison values of renown gain is absurd

[McFlay]

not defensive just saying the same auto invite fear-mongering what ifs is a shameless tactic and unproductive

Its not "fear mongering what ifs." It already happened before. It was a stupid, broken system then, and moving back in that direction isn't going to fix things.

[McFlay]

There are plenty of small guilds that stopped moving forward prior to the change and they are still stuck at a level.

Shhhh...facts...stop it. We all know that when comparing large guilds and small guilds we are only allowed to make comparisons to the top .001% of small guilds under the old system.

However, when making comparisons under the new system we are only allowed to talk about small guilds who haven't hit a plateau yet because they most likely haven't even seen level 60 yet.

[Falco_Easts]

just being large does not mean a mass recruiting or spammer guild in anyway and is a common misguided statement the fear induced hysteria that was caused by this is years old and is untrue and unwarrented
the idea that a verysmall guild only has to recruit a few members and stay small and be able to progress forward vrs a large guild who must radically change its core was the surface of this issue
to keep this going on falsehoods is unfair for the genral playing base so just
try and understand that the large guilds needed a restructure of the renown system that for so long caused such a high level of strife and althought this change might not be the greatest for a small minorty of that playing public it has been a great releif to long established large guilds across all the servers so by including anything in a statement about rolling
back to the old system of repression i cannot sign on at all i understand guilds under 10 members at this moment are feeling the pinch but talking about putting it back where almost every one outside that margian felt it is not the answer

Going by your join date you missed the rise of the spammer guilds that happened after the guild update. It did happen, all because it was the easiest way for said guild to cap their membership and gain levels. It was pretty messy. Although one did gain a humourous lesson in making people you don't know well officers.

[theslimshady]

mcflay ---no the old system was broken and only 001 percent found it any good thats why it was fixed to the current awesome system

[theslimshady]

falco east--- again to many make assumption i have multiple accounts like most long time players do
i run the guild that won the astral diamond contest on lammnia during the preveiw of guild ships we was large then even before renown exsisted
most servers have never been bothered by the large guilds on the server its that 001 percent you like to talk about that hide behind guild level prestige and tried to start some false idea that high guild level meant elite and uber

large guilds only asked for releif from having to make all these tough descions on recruitting kicking and renown level walls and in response we have been nothing but compaired with the 001 percent and insulted
i would not dare tell you any facts or numbers on a small guild being i never ran one of em yet for some reason almost every proponet of large guilds is tiny idty bity guild leaders who knows nothing about the internal workings of a large well established guild go figure

[McFlay]

large guilds only asked for releif from having to make all these tough descions on recruitting kicking and renown level walls and in response we have been

lulz you were the one that started comparing yourself to the small handful of guilds that were the exception to the rule, otherwise even under the old decay system you would have been smart enough to realize your big casual guild was still a much, much higher level then smaller casual guilds. I guess you only enjoy the biased comparisons when they support your ideas though.

[slarden]

You realise this rant makes you seem rather childish, dont you?

Why isnt it fair that a 60 man guild has the same decay as a 6 man one? What is wrong with recruiting whomever might want to join your guild? You arent really making any logical argument here but rather assumptions based on statements like "not earn that by just logging on once in a while and take everybody who wants in". We have a big guild that often has 15-20 dedicated players on at once and for (at least) a year we stayed at level 63. Since the changes we have cruised to level 65 already.

Thank you for making the right changes Turbine.

What is the point of attacking him? His point is valid that the new system is not fair.

Decay is ultimately a tax on the people in the guild and not the guild itself since the guild can't earn renown - only players can do that. It makes no sense for a person in one guild to get a tax 10x higher than a person in another guild that is at the same level. After all this is a penalty and not a leveling mechanism.

Many large and small guilds were unable to level under the old system. Under the new system this issue was resolved for all large guilds and not at all for guilds of 10 or less.

The problem with the new system is that their is an unfair penalty mechanism that needs to be addressed. I think getting rid of decay entirely would resolve this issue. As it is now decay was effectively removed as an issue for most large guilds, so why do we need it? It was put in to stop guilds from advancing by growing in the first place. It's time has come and gone - get rid of it.

It's great that your guild is gaining levels fast, but there are many small guilds that never even made it to 60 before hitting a ceiling. Why is it so wrong for those to guilds to get some help.

[Dandonk]

The problem with the new system is that their is an unfair penalty mechanism that needs to be addressed. I think getting rid of decay entirely would resolve this issue. As it is now decay was effectively removed as an issue for most large guilds, so why do we need it? It was put in to stop guilds from advancing by growing in the first place. It's time has come and gone - get rid of it.

Exactly. Since Turbine nolonger seem to think that limiting growth is necessary, why keep it just for small guilds?

[slarden]

falco east--- again to many make assumption i have multiple accounts like most long time players do
i run the guild that won the astral diamond contest on lammnia during the preveiw of guild ships we was large then even before renown exsisted
most servers have never been bothered by the large guilds on the server its that 001 percent you like to talk about that hide behind guild level prestige and tried to start some false idea that high guild level meant elite and uber

large guilds only asked for releif from having to make all these tough descions on recruitting kicking and renown level walls and in response we have been nothing but compaired with the 001 percent and insulted
i would not dare tell you any facts or numbers on a small guild being i never ran one of em yet for some reason almost every proponet of large guilds is tiny idty bity guild leaders who knows nothing about the internal workings of a large well established guild go figure

Have you not seen the continued attacks on small guilds on this thread and the others? Just look at your own words when you describe small guilds "tiny idty bity guild leaders" and look at the words when you describe large guilds "large well established guild". While it's not an attack, it is much like what tshober does by using demeaning phrases when referring to small guilds and lofty righteous phrases when referring to large guilds. It gets old for those of us in small guilds too.

The small percentage he is talking about are the small guilds that made it to level 90. They represent a tiny tiny percentage of small guilds and yet are being shown as the example of why it is so easy for small gulids to level. It's only easy for small guilds to get to that level if every member is highly active - playing many hours every day and always taking renown as an end reward. Most small guilds are not like that, although I am impressed that those guilds accomplished what they did.

Right now we have a very extreme double standard. It is ok for large guilds to have low activity rates and advance, but small guilds can only advance if they are highly active. We should either reduce decay ratably for all or just get rid of it (which is also reducing ratably).

[-IPJC-]

You realise this rant makes you seem rather childish, dont you?

Why isnt it fair that a 60 man guild has the same decay as a 6 man one? What is wrong with recruiting whomever might want to join your guild? You arent really making any logical argument here but rather assumptions based on statements like "not earn that by just logging on once in a while and take everybody who wants in". We have a big guild that often has 15-20 dedicated players on at once and for (at least) a year we stayed at level 63. Since the changes we have cruised to level 65 already.

Thank you for making the right changes Turbine.

Hello Son of the South,

Please explain to me where the rant is in my post? As u should know Turbine asked guilds to give there opinion about recent changes to the guild decay system and that's simply what i did. That your and my opinion about the new system are different seems clear to me, but why call my post childish?

Its funny that u state your guild has been level 63 for a year and that now, with the recent change, your guild advanced to 65. Didn't i say that the new system took away the challenge? Here's the example of it. Good luck 'cruising' to level 66 and be sure to stay proud of it.

[theslimshady]

Have you not seen the continued attacks on small guilds on this thread and the others? Just look at your own words when you describe small guilds "tiny idty bity guild leaders" and look at the words when you describe large guilds "large well established guild". While it's not an attack, it is much like what tshober does by using demeaning phrases when referring to small guilds and lofty righteous phrases when referring to large guilds. It gets old for those of us in small guilds too.

The small percentage he is talking about are the small guilds that made it to level 90. They represent a tiny tiny percentage of small guilds and yet are being shown as the example of why it is so easy for small gulids to level. It's only easy for small guilds to get to that level if every member is highly active - playing many hours every day and always taking renown as an end reward. Most small guilds are not like that, although I am impressed that those guilds accomplished what they did.
Right now we have a very extreme double standard. It is ok for large guilds to have low activity rates and advance, but small guilds can only advance if they are highly active. We should either reduce decay ratably for all or just get rid of it (which is also reducing ratably).

look spin it how you will i did not ask turbine to hurt or change anything to do with small guilds and they didnt they changed 11-1000 accounts to be more player freindly and in response the overall idea was a good one
then a small handfull of peeps decided this was a large guild undermind thing based on epeen and guild prestige when it was not it was something we asked for to be addressed cause it was a real living nightmere after walling off for a entire year
and then we defended our position against people talking about how great the old system was because the majority of players did not think it was
and my final point was not you was wrong or i was right but the large against small comparision is not productive i think more stabile direct ideas are important
like about only what would be needed to help 10 or under guilds with this system in place and i really thought my idea with no decay on 10 or under was a really good one make 11 members the threshold for decay at all

[Gremmlynn]

Guild decay is needed because it prevents mass recruit guilds who recruit anybody and everybody from shooting up to level 100 while guilds who do not do this suffer. The original system did a great job of preventing this. Now keep in mind you get most of your buffs in the guild level 60ish range so if you plateaud at 70, you were just crying about epeen really.

It would have been a lot easier to digest if turbine simply added in a no renown feature where you can guild someone, but flag them no renown and they neither gain renown or count towards your guild size for decay/renown bonuses. Instead they implement free pass for large guilds, and screw everyone else.Yes the old system actively supported only the right people getting to be in viable guilds. For the rest, they just had to learn that playing games was all about hard work and dedication, not just something to do to relax.

[Gremmlynn]

Hello Son of the South,

Please explain to me where the rant is in my post? As u should know Turbine asked guilds to give there opinion about recent changes to the guild decay system and that's simply what i did. That your and my opinion about the new system are different seems clear to me, but why call my post childish?

Its funny that u state your guild has been level 63 for a year and that now, with the recent change, your guild advanced to 65. Didn't i say that the new system took away the challenge? Here's the example of it. Good luck 'cruising' to level 66 and be sure to stay proud of it.Why should it be a challenge to play with others who will support you?

[-IPJC-]

Why should it be a challenge to play with others who will support you?

It used to be a challenge to get a high level guild and get things good organised. I liked that and was proud of my guild level. Now large manned guilds can easily achieve the same without actually knowing how to play the game or organize things in their guild.

[Gremmlynn]

It used to be a challenge to get a high level guild and get things good organised. I liked that and was proud of my guild level. Now large manned guilds can easily achieve the same without actually knowing how to play the game or organize things in their guild.I don't get the challenge. Play a lot, open lots of chests, keep decay low by avoiding those who don't play a lot and your guild gains levels. Just seems like a fairly unfriendly way to play the game to me.

Personally, I'm more proud of a guildie that takes the time to guide some new blood through a WW crawl rather than boring themselves to tears zerging the giants vault to ransack.

IMO the guild leveling system should support the guild and the game, not the other way around. Limiting guild membership and dictating how you play doesn't do that IMO.

[slarden]

I don't get the challenge. Play a lot, open lots of chests, keep decay low by avoiding those who don't play a lot and your guild gains levels. Just seems like a fairly unfriendly way to play the game to me.

Personally, I'm more proud of a guildie that takes the time to guide some new blood through a WW crawl rather than boring themselves to tears zerging the giants vault to ransack.

IMO the guild leveling system should support the guild and the game, not the other way around. Limiting guild membership and dictating how you play doesn't do that IMO.

See now you are putting words in his mouth. He ever said anyting about limiting guild membership or zerging or ransacking- that was you making it up.

The system used to be activity based entirely. Now it is an easy button to 100 for large guilds and still an activity based system for small guilds. There is a double standard that is easy and clear to see. Most people don't know about this yet, but word is slowly getting out to small guilds.

[Chaos000]

I knew there would be some gaming of the system, but I didn't expect large guilds to start recruiting vets from small guilds. I thought they would mass invite in the harbor or Korthos. However, the tactic makes sense. The fastest way to advance is to recruit vets from small guilds. It's a much easier sell than it used to be with the easy and fast march to 100.

Vets left large guilds for smaller guilds because they found that to be the easiest way to fast march to 100 because while it was theoretically possible, it appeared to be out of reach for large guilds. It stands to reason that if this is no longer the case, the vets who originally left a large guild only because of the lack of guild level progression, would consider leaving a smaller guild.

[-IPJC-]

Thank u Slarden, exactly my point

[Hordo]

If people want to leave our guild for the easy level 100 button then I will not try to discourage it. However, this change was made to help casual players, not to help large guilds recruit vets from small guilds.

At least that is what we were told.

As you said, that is bound to happen in a system that greatly favors one guild size.

I keep reading your posts and just don't understand. Do you actually belong to a guild? I am the guild leader of two guilds: one large, one small. Before the changes the small one way out-paced the large one in growth and the large one was virtually stalled. After the changes, the small one still out-paces the large one in growth by a long shot and the large one is now growing again but nowhere in the realm of inequal growth/decay that you are implying over the course of your posts in this and other threads. Perhaps I'm misreading our data, however.

[theslimshady]

If people want to leave our guild for the easy level 100 button then I will not try to discourage it. However, this change was made to help casual players, not to help large guilds recruit vets from small guilds.

At least that is what we were told.

As you said, that is bound to happen in a system that greatly favors one guild size.

Nobody in my guild ever left another guild for an easy march to 100 - they knew it would never happen. I never recruit from other guilds. Nor should I be forced to as our only way to deal with this painfully high decay tax.

there is no easy button to 100 the renown still must be gained you sir are just tring to make people confused
i am sorry you feel your guild was not addressed but again i feel your statements are unproductive you refuse to stop attacking and belittling large guilds which is a shame this change affected all guilds 11-1000 members not just large and your complaint is not against large guilds but what was not done for your guild
i think it might be more productive for you to come up with a concrete idea on how to help under 10 member guilds with the current system then all the false propagandi and fear mongering tactics
my suggestion of no decay was based on i didnt see how a increase to 300 percent small guild bonus would really offset cas players in a under 10 man guild so my thought was if they couldnt play if they didnt bleed any renown it would keep them intact

[theslimshady]

There is no fear mongering. When I was on an alt I received a message from a large guild asking me if I wanted to join their guild. I declined. A guildly said he also received a tell from a large guild asking him to join. I assume he declined although he didn't specifically state that he did.

The renown must be gained sure, but there is a simple math formula to figure out what the level potential is for a guild based on where they were stalled before the change and the # of accounts in the guild. Most large guilds will not have a problem reaching 100 under the system which is fine. However, small guilds still have the same amount of decay that prevents many small guilds from advancing. This is not fear mongering it is a fact.

As for ideas, I've provided plenty. Others have provided plenty.

Can you please show me where I attacked and belittled large guilds?

again your post has no ideas in it its only a defense
what would you do under the current system to help your guilds troubles with the current system

[slarden]

I keep reading your posts and just don't understand. Do you actually belong to a guild? I am the guild leader of two guilds: one large, one small. Before the changes the small one way out-paced the large one in growth and the large one was virtually stalled. After the changes, the small one still out-paces the large one in growth by a long shot and the large one is now growing again but nowhere in the realm of inequal growth/decay that you are implying over the course of your posts in this and other threads. Perhaps I'm misreading our data, however.

Yes I am an officer/member of a guild.

It depends on the levels really. The early levels are way easier than the higher levels. It's really hard to say where a guild will stall until it actually happens. Decay doesn't start to be a serious issue until around level 60.

This only works if a guild reached a point where it was stuck in place. If a guild is still advancing it's too hard to tell where it's potential is, but it would be higher than this formula:

1) Lookup the decay multiplier for the level the guild was stalled at here:

http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown#Guild_renown_decay_formula

2) Use this formula to determine the lookup value:

max ((modified acct size + 10),20) / 20 * [Decay multiplier from step 1]

3) lookup this value in the multiplier column and find the corresponding level for the value closest to the # from step 2

So for a guild of 300 that was stalled at level 60 before the change, they will have no problem reaching level 100 assuming the activity level and # of people stays roughly the same. I didn't say it would be fast they still need 40MM renown, but decay will not prevent this guild from getting to 100. A small guild of 10 stalled at 60 would continue to be stalled at 60.

The reason is that the guild of 300 received a 93.5% reduction in decay while the small guild of 10 didn't receive any reduction.

I am happy for all the large guilds that got a reduction, I would just like to see every guild get the decay monkey off their back instead of just large guilds.

A guild of 10 at level 40 only has 480 decay / day. @ 50 that is 1875/day. By 71 it is 12,527 per day. At lower levels it's real easy to advance for all guilds. But eventually decay will catch up with most small guilds even if it seems like smooth sailing right now.

The 6 person guilds that advanced to 100 did so because of large amounts of play time and a flaw in the decay formula that didn't properly account for small guild bonus. It was not because it was easy.

[berlinetta84]

Right now we have a very extreme double standard. It is ok for large guilds to have low activity rates and advance, but small guilds can only advance if they are highly active. We should either reduce decay ratably for all or just get rid of it (which is also reducing ratably).

Okay, stuff like this is really starting to confuse me about this whole renown revamp. If I read the original posting correctly, the primary change is that guild-size multiplier has been removed from renown decay. Am I right in my understanding of that?

If so, I don't understand how exactly smaller guilds are being "penalized" under the new system. The small/verysmall/etc renown reward bonus is still active, and the renown decay for the smallest guilds remains the same as before.

The only penalty I can see under the new system is the one that was removed for the larger guilds, no penalty added to smaller ones, just the removal of the bias against guilds for having more members than others.

I keep seeing people saying that the system is unfair for smaller guilds, but I see it as being that a lvl X guild gets Y decay. That seems fair to me. If anything, the reward bonus for being small is technically unfair, I mean why should Bob get 150 renown for choosing the same end reward that only gives Joe 50 renown just because Bob happens to be in a small guild? They both did the same quest and chose the same reward. Is Joe being penalized for being in a large guild? No, Bob is being rewarded for being in a small one. If both their guilds are lvl 70, does Bob now get the same 50 renown from that reward as Joe? No, he still gets his 150. The only difference is that Joe has a lot more people to help stave off the daily decay cost than Bob does, by choice.

I don't see how it can get any simpler and easier to understand. If it costs 10,805 renown per day to keep a guild at level 70, then it costs 10,805 to keep a guild at level 70. If Bob chooses to do that with 5 friends, that's his choice. Why should Joe get penalized if he chooses to get 99 other people to help him?

Just because it's not fun for how some people choose to play, doesn't mean it isn't still fair.

[theslimshady]

Okay, stuff like this is really starting to confuse me about this whole renown revamp. If I read the original posting correctly, the primary change is that guild-size multiplier has been removed from renown decay. Am I right in my understanding of that?

If so, I don't understand how exactly smaller guilds are being "penalized" under the new system. The small/verysmall/etc renown reward bonus is still active, and the renown decay for the smallest guilds remains the same as before.

The only penalty I can see under the new system is the one that was removed for the larger guilds, no penalty added to smaller ones, just the removal of the bias against guilds for having more members than others.

I keep seeing people saying that the system is unfair for smaller guilds, but I see it as being that a lvl X guild gets Y decay. That seems fair to me. If anything, the reward bonus for being small is technically unfair, I mean why should Bob get 150 renown for choosing the same end reward that only gives Joe 50 renown just because Bob happens to be in a small guild? They both did the same quest and chose the same reward. Is Joe being penalized for being in a large guild? No, Bob is being rewarded for being in a small one. If both their guilds are lvl 70, does Bob now get the same 50 renown from that reward as Joe? No, he still gets his 150. The only difference is that Joe has a lot more people to help stave off the daily decay cost than Bob does, by choice.

I don't see how it can get any simpler and easier to understand. If it costs 10,805 renown per day to keep a guild at level 70, then it costs 10,805 to keep a guild at level 70. If Bob chooses to do that with 5 friends, that's his choice. Why should Joe get penalized if he chooses to get 99 other people to help him?

Just because it's not fun for how some people choose to play, doesn't mean it isn't still fair.


the whole argument is based on the 10 base accounts to decay modifier no matter if there is 2 in guild and at higher level this could be a extreme hardship for under 10 member guilds so then you campair per person with a very large guild and then it becomes my 2 player guild has to earn what 10 should have and then is not equal to what 1000 is very strange i know

[slarden]

Okay, stuff like this is really starting to confuse me about this whole renown revamp. If I read the original posting correctly, the primary change is that guild-size multiplier has been removed from renown decay. Am I right in my understanding of that?

If so, I don't understand how exactly smaller guilds are being "penalized" under the new system. The small/verysmall/etc renown reward bonus is still active, and the renown decay for the smallest guilds remains the same as before.

The only penalty I can see under the new system is the one that was removed for the larger guilds, no penalty added to smaller ones, just the removal of the bias against guilds for having more members than others.

I keep seeing people saying that the system is unfair for smaller guilds, but I see it as being that a lvl X guild gets Y decay. That seems fair to me. If anything, the reward bonus for being small is technically unfair, I mean why should Bob get 150 renown for choosing the same end reward that only gives Joe 50 renown just because Bob happens to be in a small guild? They both did the same quest and chose the same reward. Is Joe being penalized for being in a large guild? No, Bob is being rewarded for being in a small one. If both their guilds are lvl 70, does Bob now get the same 50 renown from that reward as Joe? No, he still gets his 150. The only difference is that Joe has a lot more people to help stave off the daily decay cost than Bob does, by choice.

I don't see how it can get any simpler and easier to understand. If it costs 10,805 renown per day to keep a guild at level 70, then it costs 10,805 to keep a guild at level 70. If Bob chooses to do that with 5 friends, that's his choice. Why should Joe get penalized if he chooses to get 99 other people to help him?

Just because it's not fun for how some people choose to play, doesn't mean it isn't still fair.

It's quite simple. Decay is a penalty that prevents guilds from advancing. Each person in an 8 person guild must earn 9x more renown than people in a guild of 200 just to cover the daily decay tax. This factors in the small guild bonus. All guilds struggled with decay under the old system, but only some guilds got a decay reduction. This is why it is unfair.

It effectively forces small guilds to be highly active or move backwards. Large guilds will advance with or without high activity rates. I understand that large guilds had casual players that couldn't cover their decay tax, but many small guilds also have that problem.

Wouldn't it be better to just let all guilds advance instead of only letting large guilds advance? I don't see what the problem is if small guilds also get a fair decay reduction.

[berlinetta84]

Wouldn't it be better to just let all guilds advance instead of only letting large guilds advance? I don't see what the problem is if small guilds also get a fair decay reduction.

All guilds can advance. But the 8 man guild already gets a decay reduction in the form of the bonus to renown earned. They are already getting 3 times the amount of renown per reward that the members of the large guild get. To be truly fair and equal, you'd need to remove that bonus.

Unfair would be if Turbine only allowed you to choose a guild charter based on the number of players you start the guild with. In other words, if you and 8 friends decide you want to start a guild, you only get to use the TinyGuildCharter and can never grow past 10 members. But it doesn't work that way. If you want to start a guild, you just do it, regardless of how many members you choose to invite into your guild.

It takes 1 person to start a guild, regardless of how many members you want to have - Fair.
It costs X renown to advance from one level to the next, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.
It costs X renown decay to keep your guild at level, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.

If I choose to invite 200 people into my guild or just keep it with me and 7 other people, the cost for the Guild to advance or remain at level is the same for the Guild. As long as nobody is being forced to only have 8 people in their guild, nobody is being forced to split renown cost 8 ways. They choose to.

[slarden]

All guilds can advance. But the 8 man guild already gets a decay reduction in the form of the bonus to renown earned. They are already getting 3 times the amount of renown per reward that the members of the large guild get. To be truly fair and equal, you'd need to remove that bonus.

Unfair would be if Turbine only allowed you to choose a guild charter based on the number of players you start the guild with. In other words, if you and 8 friends decide you want to start a guild, you only get to use the TinyGuildCharter and can never grow past 10 members. But it doesn't work that way. If you want to start a guild, you just do it, regardless of how many members you choose to invite into your guild.

It takes 1 person to start a guild, regardless of how many members you want to have - Fair.
It costs X renown to advance from one level to the next, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.
It costs X renown decay to keep your guild at level, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.

If I choose to invite 200 people into my guild or just keep it with me and 7 other people, the cost for the Guild to advance or remain at level is the same for the Guild. As long as nobody is being forced to only have 8 people in their guild, nobody is being forced to split renown cost 8 ways. They choose to.

A penalty should not be higher because a group of people chooses to keep a guild small. I have no problem that it takes longer to level for a small guild, but there should not be a daily penalty on top of that. Even with the small guld bonus both leveling and covering the decay is way higher - 9x or more compared to large guilds. I have no problem with the leveling aspect - that makes sense. However the penalty itself makes no sense.

What useful purpose does it serve to penalize people that choose to be in small guilds with a very high decay tax?

[Chaos000]

Large guilds will advance with or without high activity rates.

This statement is misleading. A large guild of 51 will still theoretically struggle against the daily decay tax (non-daily player activity, players with multiple characters in the same guild, players in multiple guilds)

I am all for guilds advancing instead of only letting large guilds advance. I've already suggested an equitable reduction of decay for guilds between the sizes of 1-50. 2% per player less 51. Guild of 10 = 92% reduction, guild of 20 = 82% reduction etc.

A guild of 10 (92% reduction) at level 40 only has 39 decay/day. @ 50 that is 150/day. By 71 it is 1003 per day. A guild of 2 at lvl 71 is 251 per day (98% reduction). A solo guild of 1? 100% reduction. congradulation sir 0 decay.

Now even after removing arbitrary guild size renown bonuses all guilds can now advance without being a large guild OR a highly active small guild.

Side benefits is that now large guilds that do not have a guild size renown bonus remains unaffected by this change and players that have been gaming the system with "fake dummy accounts" to maximize their guild renown bonus no longer have an incentive to continue doing so.

[theslimshady]

A penalty should not be higher because a group of people chooses to keep a guild small. I have no problem that it takes longer to level for a small guild, but there should not be a daily penalty on top of that. Even with the small guld bonus both leveling and covering the decay is way higher - 9x or more compared to large guilds. I have no problem with the leveling aspect - that makes sense. However the penalty itself makes no sense.

What useful purpose does it serve to penalize people that choose to be in small guilds with a very high decay tax?

again the decay is not higher they are all the same it maybe harder for 6 peeps then 1000 to cover it but is exsactly the same amount needed to be covered by all guilds this decay tax you keep saying is misleading and confusing

its not a tax its the same decay amount for all level guilds no matter what size the only difference is small and meduim guilds get bonuses and you direct all your math against per player tring to compare a 1000 person guild against a 6
the really confusing part of your argument is that your decay rate did not change at all 0 not 1 more renown needed from this system from the last system

[slarden]

again the decay is not higher they are all the same it maybe harder for 6 peeps then 1000 to cover it but is exsactly the same amount needed to be covered by all guilds this decay tax you keep saying is misleading and confusing

its not a tax its the same decay amount for all level guilds no matter what size the only difference is small and meduim guilds get bonuses and you direct all your math against per player tring to compare a 1000 person guild against a 6
the really confusing part of your argument is that your decay rate did not change at all 0 not 1 more renown needed from this system from the last system

A guild itself is just a chat room, ship and amenities. The guild has no ability to earn renown. People earn renow and people are what make the guild great - which is one reason people resent the fact that they must change the guild they are happy with. Decay is ultimately a tax on each person in the guild so yes there is inequity when you compare a person in a small guild to a person in a large guild. The person in a small guild is getting a massive decay tax that they would not be getting in a large guild.

The argument that "nothing changed" doesn't work. When a person in one guild got a 93.5% reduction in decay and a person in another guild got no decay reduction there was a change. If it was the other way around the large guilds would be screaming up a storm about it and we all know that.

It ultimately acts as a tax on each person in the guild. If a person earns 1000 renown and the decay is over 2000 - the person in the small guild was taxed more renown than they can earn. The old system worked like this for all guilds, but now only small guilds are stuck with thsi massive tax. If we want to change from an activity based system that is fine - but it should be the same for all guilds not just large guilds.

[theslimshady]

A guild itself is just a chat room, ship and amenities. The guild has no ability to earn renown. People earn renow and people are what make the guild great - which is one reason people resent the fact that they must change the guild they are happy with. Decay is ultimately a tax on each person in the guild so yes there is inequity when you compare a person in a small guild to a person in a large guild. The person in a small guild is getting a massive decay tax that they would not be getting in a large guild.

The argument that "nothing changed" doesn't work. When a person in one guild got a 93.5% reduction in decay and a person in another guild got no decay reduction there was a change. If it was the other way around the large guilds would be screaming up a storm about it and we all know that.

It ultimately acts as a tax on each person in the guild. If a person earns 1000 renown and the decay is over 2000 - the person in the small guild was taxed more renown than they can earn. The old system worked like this for all guilds, but now only small guilds are stuck with thsi massive tax. If we want to change from an activity based system that is fine - but it should be the same for all guilds not just large guilds.

again read between the lines you are saying it outloud your guild decay or tax as you call it has not changed at all you just dont think its fair that your guild should have a harder go at gaining renown then a large guild and you dont feel the small guild bonus goes far enough
imo the real promblem with this argument is that most small guildes that was represented in this debate said how awesome the decay system was before so being it hasnt changed at all except reworking 11-1000 member guilds i dont understand the comparison and i still after you 100 the post dont quite understand what you would like to see happen i mean a adjustment to bonus i dont really think removal or reworking the entire system is realistic and as i would like to see all happy i dont understand what you would like to see done

[slarden]

again read between the lines you are saying it outloud your guild decay or tax as you call it has not changed at all you just dont think its fair that your guild should have a harder go at gaining renown then a large guild and you dont feel the small guild bonus goes far enough
imo the real promblem with this argument is that most small guildes that was represented in this debate said how awesome the decay system was before so being it hasnt changed at all except reworking 11-1000 member guilds i dont understand the comparison and i still after you 100 the post dont quite understand what you would like to see happen i mean a adjustment to bonus i dont really think removal or reworking the entire system is realistic and as i would like to see all happy i dont understand what you would like to see done

Show me where I ever said I like the old system. It never happened .

I would like to see decay removed entirely or reduced ratably rather than only for some guilds. It may or may not happen.

I don't understand why people like yourself are fighting against giving small guilds a break like larger guilds received. It seems like your only point is that you want it to be harder for small guilds. What does that accomplish and how does that benefit the game?

[theslimshady]

Show me where I ever said I like the old system. It never happened .

I would like to see decay removed entirely or reduced ratably rather than only for some guilds. It may or may not happen.

I don't understand why people like yourself are fighting against giving small guilds a break like larger guilds received. It seems like your only point is that you want it to be harder for small guilds. What does that accomplish and how does that benefit the game?


again i am just tring to understand where you are tring to go with this i dont beleave removing the entire renown decay system is a realistic option
i dont wish anything on ya except how we can make you feel alright as a guild and after dechipering the stuff i think you are saying you want your decay removed entirely is that correct and nothing else would be viable for u and all because your decay rate when compaired to a large guild is not the same per player to gain

[berlinetta84]

A guild itself is just a chat room, ship and amenities. The guild has no ability to earn renown. People earn renow and people are what make the guild great - which is one reason people resent the fact that they must change the guild they are happy with. Decay is ultimately a tax on each person in the guild so yes there is inequity when you compare a person in a small guild to a person in a large guild. The person in a small guild is getting a massive decay tax that they would not be getting in a large guild.

The argument that "nothing changed" doesn't work. When a person in one guild got a 93.5% reduction in decay and a person in another guild got no decay reduction there was a change. If it was the other way around the large guilds would be screaming up a storm about it and we all know that.

It ultimately acts as a tax on each person in the guild. If a person earns 1000 renown and the decay is over 2000 - the person in the small guild was taxed more renown than they can earn. The old system worked like this for all guilds, but now only small guilds are stuck with thsi massive tax. If we want to change from an activity based system that is fine - but it should be the same for all guilds not just large guilds.

I really do dislike arguing semantics, but I will try one more time to explain the problem I'm seeing with your view on this.

I concede that there is in fact a disparity between how much renown a person in a small guild would need to earn to pull their share of the decay debt when compared to a member of a large guild. But that is not due to somebody deciding that people in small guilds need to be punished, it is just the result of a playstyle choice.

Let me put it to you a different way. The khopesh is widely accepted as the go-to weapon for melee. But I don't care for the way they look, just doesn't fit my char you know. So I want to use hand-axes instead. In theory I can kill anything that the khopesh user can, just not as quickly. Since it takes me longer to kill things, I'll take more damage over time and need more healing, etc. Now... should I get an automatic reduction in the hps of every npc I fight to subsidize my playstyle even though it was my choice to use the handaxes instead of khopesh?

That is what you a saying here. It costs X renown to level up or Y renown to offset decay for every guild. But since you made the choice to split X or Y with 8 people as part of your playstyle, you should get a reduction in the amount of renown needed to subsidize your playstyle even though it was your choice.

[Thayion516]

All guilds can advance. But the 8 man guild already gets a decay reduction in the form of the bonus to renown earned. They are already getting 3 times the amount of renown per reward that the members of the large guild get. To be truly fair and equal, you'd need to remove that bonus.

Unfair would be if Turbine only allowed you to choose a guild charter based on the number of players you start the guild with. In other words, if you and 8 friends decide you want to start a guild, you only get to use the TinyGuildCharter and can never grow past 10 members. But it doesn't work that way. If you want to start a guild, you just do it, regardless of how many members you choose to invite into your guild.

It takes 1 person to start a guild, regardless of how many members you want to have - Fair.
It costs X renown to advance from one level to the next, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.
It costs X renown decay to keep your guild at level, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.

If I choose to invite 200 people into my guild or just keep it with me and 7 other people, the cost for the Guild to advance or remain at level is the same for the Guild. As long as nobody is being forced to only have 8 people in their guild, nobody is being forced to split renown cost 8 ways. They choose to.

Several others and myself have tried to explain this to Slarden. However he seems unable/willing to understand it. He just wants his 2 man casual guild that only play 3 times a month to level like a 200 man guild with continuous multiplayer input. And refuses to include other people in his guild.

Nothing against small guild sizes, but Tiny (as defined by Turbine) super casual guilds should not level any where like many player guilds.

If u want to build your levels and lighten the load Slarden, stop being antisocial in a MMO, and actually invite a few people and be social and inclusive. If inviting 2-4 good players into your guild will break your will to play. You have little will to play DDO in the first place. Buy a Xbox.

Inclusion is better then Exclusion. The Devs are absolutely right.

[McFlay]

the whole argument is based on the 10 base accounts to decay modifier no matter if there is 2 in guild and at higher level this could be a extreme hardship for under 10 member guilds so then you campair per person with a very large guild and then it becomes my 2 player guild has to earn what 10 should have and then is not equal to what 1000 is very strange i know

That's not the argument. There was always an extra +10 in the decay formula even prior to the change. The argument is about it being stupid that someone in a 10 person guild has to deal with 25x the decay per head as someone in a 250 person guild, and that if turbine is going to have guild decay it shouldn't only be significant if you happen to prefer being smallish guild.

[McFlay]

Several others and myself have tried to explain this to Slarden. However he seems unable/willing to understand it. He just wants his 2 man casual guild that only play 3 times a month to level like a 200 man guild with continuous multiplayer input. And refuses to include other people in his guild.

I don't think thats the issue. The issue is pre change a group of 5 casuals and 5 active players were in roughly the same position as a group of 50 casuals and 50 active players. Now the guild of 10 is dealing with 10x the decay per person as the guild of 100. We go from a system that at least had relatively the same impact on every player, to one that group A sees no change, and group B gets a massive reduction, and some it becomes an issue of inclusion/exclusion?

Is it really encouraging inclusion if I guild a bunch of people and never talk to them or do anything with them, but the system encourages me to spam invite if I want an easier time leveling? If turbine wanted to encourage inclusion there are a lot better ways to doing it then telling everyone who enjoys a guild on the smaller end of the spectrum to join/become a large guild, because if you aren't a large guild your exclusive, otherwise just eat the turd sandwich and be happy.

I'm also trying to understand how ridiculous the whole concept is that turbine actually did this to encourage inclusion, when it wasn't all that long ago they implemented dungeon scaling, that is the single biggest reason in ddo to not group and not play with other people through most content.

[theslimshady]

That's not the argument. There was always an extra +10 in the decay formula even prior to the change. The argument is about it being stupid that someone in a 10 person guild has to deal with 25x the decay per head as someone in a 250 person guild, and that if turbine is going to have guild decay it shouldn't only be significant if you happen to prefer being smallish guild.

so in other words if large guilds didnt exsist you would have no gripe at all and because they do it is a horrible system and you need more i understand now so basically you are piggybacking to get more for your personal guild now it all is clear to me

[slarden]

I really do dislike arguing semantics, but I will try one more time to explain the problem I'm seeing with your view on this.

I concede that there is in fact a disparity between how much renown a person in a small guild would need to earn to pull their share of the decay debt when compared to a member of a large guild. But that is not due to somebody deciding that people in small guilds need to be punished, it is just the result of a playstyle choice.

Let me put it to you a different way. The khopesh is widely accepted as the go-to weapon for melee. But I don't care for the way they look, just doesn't fit my char you know. So I want to use hand-axes instead. In theory I can kill anything that the khopesh user can, just not as quickly. Since it takes me longer to kill things, I'll take more damage over time and need more healing, etc. Now... should I get an automatic reduction in the hps of every npc I fight to subsidize my playstyle even though it was my choice to use the handaxes instead of khopesh?

That is what you a saying here. It costs X renown to level up or Y renown to offset decay for every guild. But since you made the choice to split X or Y with 8 people as part of your playstyle, you should get a reduction in the amount of renown needed to subsidize your playstyle even though it was your choice.

And the exact same argument could have been made with regards to large guilds not advancing under the old system. Turbine made the decision not me. I pay for this game to play the game, not optimize guild size. As a player I shouldn't have to choose between getting painfully high decay or spending my limited game time building a guild that nobody in the guild wants to expand.

I understand your argument, I just completely disagree with it. Decay is a penalty inflicted on players and a player should not be punished with higher decay simply for being in a guild size that smaller than someone else's guild.

[slarden]

Several others and myself have tried to explain this to Slarden. However he seems unable/willing to understand it. He just wants his 2 man casual guild that only play 3 times a month to level like a 200 man guild with continuous multiplayer input. And refuses to include other people in his guild.

Nothing against small guild sizes, but Tiny (as defined by Turbine) super casual guilds should not level any where like many player guilds.

If u want to build your levels and lighten the load Slarden, stop being antisocial in a MMO, and actually invite a few people and be social and inclusive. If inviting 2-4 good players into your guild will break your will to play. You have little will to play DDO in the first place. Buy a Xbox.

Inclusion is better then Exclusion. The Devs are absolutely right.

As usual you are just making more condescending remarks, putting words into my mouth and saying things that aren't true.

I understand what you are saying (which is ridiculous) but I reject it and so do nearly 100 people from small guilds that have responded to the various decay threads. Your viewpoint has nothing to do with what is right or fair, you just want a system that highly favors large guilds such as yours. The same group of 6-7 continue to lobby to make it difficult for small guilds.

Decay is a penalty and it makes no sense to assess such a large penalty on people in small guilds. If we think a penalty is required for players, we would go back to the old system where everyone received the same penalty.

Large guilds were dumping their players to gain levels (exclusion). Many of those folks ended up in small guilds like mine and found a happy home (inclusion). Our guild was founded as a group of face-to-face friends and we expanded a bit.

I have limited play time and want to group with my friends. As it comes up naturally we invite and accept new people to the guild but we don't force it. We spend our limited game time playing the game and not trying add people when it doesn't feel natural to us. There are plenty of guilds that are growth-driven - we just want to enjoy the company of our friends and add new friends as it makes sense.

That is not anti-social, that is the way most guilds operate. There are a huge number of guilds that have 10 or less people.

You must be new to ddo because you don't appear to realize the many grouping and social mechanisms that don't invovle guild chat including channels, lfms, general chat and of course tells which I often use to communicate with my friends in other guilds. Guilds are not the main social vehicle for most players - far from it. Most of the actual social activity is done in quests and raids - not guild chat.

[McFlay]

so in other words if large guilds didnt exsist you would have no gripe at all and because they do it is a horrible system and you need more i understand now so basically you are piggybacking to get more for your personal guild now it all is clear to me

No, I'm saying under the old system 10 people with a 240% bonus to renown having to deal with the decay of 20 people, and 100 people having to deal with the decay of 110 people was a lot closer to being a fair system then the guild of 10, even with their 240% bonus accounted for, still having to deal with roughly 4x as much decay per player as a guild of 100.

And furthermore, if this system was changed to promote inclusion, it does an extremely poor job. For any guild between 6 and 49 members, it is still an overall penalty to include a super casual player who is barely going to play if it means shrinking the size of your renown bonus. Even for a 49 man guild, everyone getting an extra 1.44% renown is still more of an overall gain then someone who is going to contribute very little. If turbine wants to implemet a system designed to give people more incentive to recruit guildies, then why only give that incentive to guilds that intend to have 50 or more members, hence my dislike for the system. It does nothing but promote one size guild, and that is as big as you can possible make.

Its funny, how you accuse me of just wanting my preferred guild size to have a leg up. I don't want that. I don't want small guilds to be the dominant guild size, nor do I want large guilds to be the dominant guild size. It should be up to player preference, I'm simply saying decay should effect everyone the same, not have 20x the impact on person A, compared to person B, just because one person wants to be in a 10 man guild and the other in a 250.

[theslimshady]

And the exact same argument could have been made with regards to large guilds not advancing under the old system. Turbine made the decision not me. I pay for this game to play the game, not optimize guild size. As a player I shouldn't have to choose between getting painfully high decay or spending my limited game time building a guild that nobody in the guild wants to expand.

I understand your argument, I just completely disagree with it. Decay is a penalty inflicted on players and a player should not be punished with higher decay simply for being in a guild size that smaller than someone else's guild.

lol again misleading with the higher decay statement its the same for all guilds small to large and like the other guys post you should change your statement to if large guilds dont exsist i would have no gripes but because they do i need less decay and more bonuses or removal of large guilds for my personal gain because its unfair that my renown didnt change at all ty ddo

[McFlay]

You must be new to ddo because you don't appear to realize the many grouping and social mechanisms that don't invovle guild chat including channels, lfms, general chat and of course tells which I often use to communicate with my friends in other guilds. Guilds are not the main social vehicle for most players - far from it. Most of the actual social activity is done in quests and raids - not guild chat.

I was wondering this myself as well. Realistically, if you had a large guild, and only ever ran guild runs, isn't that actually being more exclusive then the guy who has a small guild and often runs with a guildy or two, and opens the group to pugs? If I was of a different guild, or unguilded, I know which of those players I would consider to be inclusive and which I would consider to be exclusive.

[theslimshady]

No, I'm saying under the old system 10 people with a 240% bonus to renown having to deal with the decay of 20 people, and 100 people having to deal with the decay of 110 people was a lot closer to being a fair system then the guild of 10, even with their 240% bonus accounted for, still having to deal with roughly 4x as much decay per player as a guild of 100. again if you had a mathmatical calculation that didnt compare you to a large guild it would be more credible if large guilds didnt exsist and only 1-49 was allowed you would have no grip correct ?


And furthermore, if this system was changed to promote inclusion, it does an extremely poor job. For any guild between 6 and 49 members, it is still an overall penalty to include a super casual player who is barely going to play if it means shrinking the size of your renown bonus. Even for a 49 man guild, everyone getting an extra 1.44% renown is still more of an overall gain then someone who is going to contribute very little. If turbine wants to implemet a system designed to give people more incentive to recruit guildies, then why only give that incentive to guilds that intend to have 50 or more members, hence my dislike for the system. It does nothing but promote one size guild, and that is as big as you can possible make. again remove large guild that you must really despise and you have nothing here either


Its funny, how you accuse me of just wanting my preferred guild size to have a leg up. I don't want that. I don't want small guilds to be the dominant guild size, nor do I want large guilds to be the dominant guild size. It should be up to player preference, I'm simply saying decay should effect everyone the same, not have 20x the impact on person A, compared to person B, just because one person wants to be in a 10 man guild and the other in a 250. you and your math say different it says i cant stand large guilds and i want to be better then them if they did not exsist non of my maths proves the system is bad in anyway it is only bad when large guilds are added into the problem

[theslimshady]

guilds can't earn renown - only players can earn renown to cover the decay penalty.

Decay is a penalty on each player in the guild, the higher the decay penalty the more active they must be to cover that decay penalty. This is the complaint large guilds had for years - that they had too much decay and couldn't advance.

Why is it all of a sudden ok for a guild that is different than yours to have a high decay penalty for each player in the guild requiring that they play a high number of hours each day?

I see no reason why people in guilds of 10 or less should get a decay penalty 9x higher than someone in another guild (after the small guild bonus is factored in).

It's called a double standard. It's not ok for your guild to have a high decay tax per player, but it is ok for my guild to have a high decay tax per player. Notice that I have not once argued that Turbine should make it harder for large guilds. I am simply trying to get fair decay for all guilds. and thats why i asked repeatedly to take large guilds out of you mathmatical calculations and tell me whats wrong with the system and by that same answer you are saying that a guild of 1 is equal to a guild of 49 and should have the same decay rate and the same renown intake ? or is it only guilds over 50 players

[slarden]

and thats why i asked repeatedly to take large guilds out of you mathmatical calculations and tell me whats wrong with the system and by that same answer you are saying that a guild of 1 is equal to a guild of 49 and should have the same decay rate and the same renown intake ? or is it only guilds over 50 players

We are comparing the fairness of the system. You can't ignore other guilds when you do that. I don't think players in a small guild should be punished by having a higher decay tax than players in large guilds. ultimately it's a tax on players and not guilds.

As for leveling, nobody is asking that small guilds get anything more for leveling up, we just don't think we should have to be burdened by a high decay penalty due solely to the fact that we are in a small guild.

Why was the decay penalty not ok for your guild under the old system, but you think it's perfectly fine that some guilds still have that same penalty under the new system?

[eris2323]

I said it once, I'll say it again, if guilds with two active players would stop complaining, and start playing the game and recruiting, maybe making some friends, they could be just as happy as everyone else.

If your guild is too small to advance; recruit.

Simple.

Find some friends.

[McFlay]

again if you had a mathmatical calculation that didnt compare you to a large guild it would be more credible if large guilds didnt exsist and only 1-49 was allowed you would have no grip correct ?

No actually, I'd still have a gripe, because a 10 man guild is still dealing with a lot more decay per player then a 49 man guild. Besides, this is just outright funny coming from someone with a great many posts that did nothing but compare his large guild to small guilds under the old decay system.


again remove large guild that you must really despise and you have nothing here either

So whats your point, if every guild was the same size I couldn't complain about a disparity in how decay effects guilds of different sizes, since you know, there wouldnt be any different sized guilds? Masterful argument sir, its what I'd expect from my 6 year old cousin.


you and your math say different it says i cant stand large guilds and i want to be better then them if they did not exsist non of my maths proves the system is bad in anyway it is only bad when large guilds are added into the problem

Hating a system where a member of a small guild has to compensate for 10-20x as much decay per day as a member of a large guilds means I hate large guilds?

I'd like to see a fair decay system, where each player causes the same amount of decay whether they be in a 10 man or 500 man guild. Please explain to me how such a system expresses bias towards on specific size or the other? I don't care if player x is in a 10 man guild or a 500, why should he have to pull 2 legendaries to compensate for his share of decay in a 10 man guild, while pulling less then one heroic will compensate for his decay in the much larger guild?

[theslimshady]

? Masterful argument sir, its what I'd expect from my 6 year old cousin.

logic has left the conversation now you are resulting in name calling i really hope the devs lock this post now and clean it up no matter what ideas are tossed out there i came up with the conculsion you sir will not find a happy point no matter what unless your guild gets what it wants and by any means avalible

[slarden]

I said it once, I'll say it again, if guilds with two active players would stop complaining, and start playing the game and recruiting, maybe making some friends, they could be just as happy as everyone else.

If your guild is too small to advance; recruit.

Simple.

Find some friends.

There were close to 100 people from small guilds that took the time to comment on the new system - in this thread and others. There are differing views, some like the old activity-based system and others preferrred to see decay removed completely, but almost all agree the new system is unfair. Another common theme is that people didn't want to be forced to recruit people in large numbers. Although you use untrue charcterizations such as saying we need to make friends, most of us in small guilds enjoy being in a guild with our friends and want to keep it that way. We use things like lfms, channels, tells and public chats in addition to the guild chat we have. It's very typical that small guilds have a large network of friiends from other guilds. I have friends from large guilds and small guilds. We are inclusive and not exclusive. You will never see guild only runs when we host raids. Many of the people that are not in a guild by choice would not even get a chance to run in raids if all we had was guild-only runs.

My guild is not too unlike many small gulds

1) Highly active person.
2) One person that is highly active most of the time but taking a break at the moment.
3) 6 people that play less frequently but are valued members of the guild. Their renown covers decay some days but not others. I would never boot a single person regardless unless they just stopped playing the game completely.

We have 6 people that were formerly in a large guild. 2 were booted while taking a break and I am not positive about the others - they were unguilded when I met them but seemed to like the idea of being in a small guild rather than a large guild.

You only call my guild a 2-man guild to hide the truth - that small guilds also have casual players - we just don't boot them based on their renown contribution so we failed to get any kind of benefit from the new system.

In this thread we have one group of people from large guilds arguing that people from small guilds should get no break. We also have a a few people out of the 100 or so that commented from small guilds continuing to comment that small guilds should get a break.

Just look at how cnok was treated when he posted his thoughts - he was attacked shortly after posting- as were most people that posted from small guilds.

I am really not discouraged that you make false and negative comments continually. I don't understand why moderators allow it, but it will not stop me and the others from posting.

Those of us in small guilds would like a fair system that doesn't favor one guild size over another.

We get comments like this for expressing our viewpoint that small guilds should get a chance to advance and not be held artifically at a level due to decay when large guilds are able to level without high activity levels.


Here comes my neg rep for the night.

I said it once, I'll say it again, if guilds with two active players would stop complaining, and start playing the game and recruiting, maybe making some friends, they could be just as happy as everyone else.

If your guild is too small to advance; recruit.

Simple.

Find some friends.

[theslimshady]

There were close to 100 people from small guilds that took the time to comment on the new system - in this thread and others. There are differing views, some like the old competitive system and others preferrred to see renown removed completely, but almost all agree the new system is unfair. Another common theme is that people didn't want to be forced to recruit people in large numbers. Although you use untrue charcterizations such as saying we need to make friends, most of us in small guilds enjoy being in a guild with our friends and want to keep it that way. We use things like lfms, channels, tells and public chats in addition to the guild chat we have. It's very typical that small guilds have a large network of friiends from other guilds. I have friends from large guilds and small guilds. We are inclusive and not exclusive. You will never see guild only runs when we host raids. Many of the people that are not in a guild by choice would not even get a chance to run in raids if all we had was guild-only runs.

My guild is not too unlike many small gulds

1) Highly active person.
2) One person that is highly active most of the time but taking a break at the moment.
3) 6 people that play less frequently but are valued members of the guild. Their renown covers decay some days but not others. I would never boot a single person regardless unless they just stopped playing the game completely.

We have 6 people that were formerly in a large guild. 2 were booted while taking a break and I am not positive about the others - they were unguilded when I met them but seemed to like the idea of being in a small guild rather than a large guild.

You only call my guild a 2-man guild to hide the truth - that small guilds also have casual players - we just don't boot them based on their renown contribution so we failed to get any kind of benefit from the new system.

In this thread we have one group of people from large guilds arguing that people from small guilds should get no break. We also have a a few people out of the 100 or so that commented from small guilds continuing to comment that small guilds should get a break.

Just look at how cnok was treated when he posted his thoughts - he was attacked shortly after posting- as were most people that posted from small guilds.

I am really not discouraged that you make false and negative comments continually. That you quote me and leave key portions of what I said out to make it look different than it was. I don't understand why moderators allow it, but it will not stop me and the others from posting.

Those of us in small guilds would like a fair system that doesn't favor one guild size over another.

We get comments like this for expressing our viewpoint that small guilds should get a chance to advance and not be held artifically at a level due to decay when large guilds are able to level without high activity levels. again all this and no idea on how under this system it can be acheived like instead of 300 percent small guild bonus maybe 3000 is that fair
what is it you think would make the current system fair for your guild i think you think as large guilds we care about 100 level little guilds and the fact is we dont they have been around over a year on my server

[McFlay]

logic has left the conversation now you are resulting in name calling i really hope the devs lock this post now and clean it up no matter what ideas are tossed out there i came up with the conculsion you sir will not find a happy point no matter what unless your guild gets what it wants and by any means avalible

My apologies maam, I was unaware you would find sir offensive. But you are right, I will not be happy until decay is actually fair, and not ironically a system heavily biased towards your preferred guild.

[McFlay]

There were close to 100 people from small guilds that took the time to comment on the new system - in this thread and others. There are differing views, some like the old activity-based system and others preferrred to see decay removed completely, but almost all agree the new system is unfair. Another common theme is that people didn't want to be forced to recruit people in large numbers. Although you use untrue charcterizations such as saying we need to make friends, most of us in small guilds enjoy being in a guild with our friends and want to keep it that way. We use things like lfms, channels, tells and public chats in addition to the guild chat we have. It's very typical that small guilds have a large network of friiends from other guilds. I have friends from large guilds and small guilds. We are inclusive and not exclusive. You will never see guild only runs when we host raids. Many of the people that are not in a guild by choice would not even get a chance to run in raids if all we had was guild-only runs.

My guild is not too unlike many small gulds

1) Highly active person.
2) One person that is highly active most of the time but taking a break at the moment.
3) 6 people that play less frequently but are valued members of the guild. Their renown covers decay some days but not others. I would never boot a single person regardless unless they just stopped playing the game completely.

We have 6 people that were formerly in a large guild. 2 were booted while taking a break and I am not positive about the others - they were unguilded when I met them but seemed to like the idea of being in a small guild rather than a large guild.

You only call my guild a 2-man guild to hide the truth - that small guilds also have casual players - we just don't boot them based on their renown contribution so we failed to get any kind of benefit from the new system.

In this thread we have one group of people from large guilds arguing that people from small guilds should get no break. We also have a a few people out of the 100 or so that commented from small guilds continuing to comment that small guilds should get a break.

Just look at how cnok was treated when he posted his thoughts - he was attacked shortly after posting- as were most people that posted from small guilds.

I am really not discouraged that you make false and negative comments continually. I don't understand why moderators allow it, but it will not stop me and the others from posting.

Those of us in small guilds would like a fair system that doesn't favor one guild size over another.

We get comments like this for expressing our viewpoint that small guilds should get a chance to advance and not be held artifically at a level due to decay when large guilds are able to level without high activity levels.

If the devs take into account 1 post while deciding on the next steps that will be taken in the decay system, I hope they read this one. It pretty much sums everything up, and I'm sure the devs see how ridiculous it is that large guilds try to hide behind the false argument certain people just want a system that favors small guilds, when all we are asking for is a fair system, which the current implementation of decay is the most far thing from fair we have ever seen.

[theslimshady]

My apologies maam, I was unaware you would find sir offensive. But you are right, I will not be happy until decay is actually fair, and not ironically a system heavily biased towards your preferred guild.

great more insults and no ideas except my decay is the same and i dont like it its not fair cause 11-1000 membered guilds changed

i think under 10 should get no decay 0 and no guild bonus that would keep them from going backwards if idle or cas players are in guild and for not exploiting there should be a hardcap at 10 members that if you get past 10 members you can never go back to that under 10 small guild status again i beleave this solves the problem of decay and inactive for tiny guilds correct

[Chaos000]

i think under 10 should get no decay 0 and no guild bonus that would keep them from going backwards if idle or casual players are in guild and for not exploiting there should be a hardcap at 10 members that if you get past 10 members you can never go back to that under 10 small guild status again i believe this solves the problem of decay and inactive for tiny guilds correct

I have no issues with this. 0 bonus 0 decay for guilds upon creation and remains until such time membership exceeds 10. Reducing a current guild's membership after it has already exceeded 10 has no effect therefore removing the benefit for mass booting after reaching a certain level.

I would prefer removing all bonuses based on size and have significantly reduced decay that is equitable for guilds that currently rely on the guild size bonuses, but anything that allows for a player to make a solo guild that can "eventually" hit a guild size of lvl 100... I could go for.

[theslimshady]

I have no issues with this. 0 bonus 0 decay for guilds upon creation and remains until such time membership exceeds 10. Reducing a current guild's membership after it has already exceeded 10 has no effect therefore removing the benefit for mass booting after reaching a certain level.

I would prefer removing all bonuses based on size and have significantly reduced decay that is equitable for guilds that currently rely on the guild size bonuses, but anything that allows for a player to make a solo guild that can "eventually" hit a guild size of lvl 100... I could go for.

yes i thought this could be a potential easy fix without too much recoding i mean i dont know for sure of course

[Tshober]

I originally posted this in a thread that has since been closed. I have re-posted it here in hopes that it will provide some reasonable ideas for where we might go from here.


The problem is any decay that is applied over short periods (less than a month) is inherently discriminatory against casual players. Decay takes away progress and casual players are active so rarely that taking away progress daily or weekly essentially insures that the casual players never progress at all. What the devs have done is made it so that large and, to a lesser degree, medium sized guilds can absorb that decay and thus provide a home for casual players and still be able to advance. But, as many have pointed out, this does not help casual players who wish to remain in small and tiny guilds.

So my first recommendation is to try to convince the devs to eliminate decay entirely.

If that fails, then we could try to convince the devs to change the formula for the guild size component in the decay calculations. In the current system, the guild size component is fixed at 20. I would propose changeing that to min(20,actual guild size), where actual guild size is just the number of active accounts in the guild. This will at least get the tiny guilds some relief from decay.

If the devs cannot be convinced to reduce decay any more than they already have, then we can try to convince them to increase the small guild bonuses so that tiny guilds get some extra renown earned to make up for the extra decay they are being forced to endure.

If all of that fails, then my recommendation for casual players is to join a larger guild if you really want to level up. If you don't care about guild level, then you are free to choose a small or tiny guild but be aware that you will be hurting that guild's ability to level up.

[MalarKan]

Dont know how you will take this, so ill just describe our current state as a guild ^^

First of all, the guild im in is level 90, we have a total of 30 account at the moment and just 8 inactive. The modified size is "Small guild". Thing is that only 4 accounts currently contribute actively to that renown gain, and the others are either casual players or former active players that just loged on to say hi and see whats going on. Before our "DOOM" downfall happened, we were just about to hit level 93, and this Renown change really saved our ship buffs :P, because i did notice the changes, and i like it, since our decay is not so huge anymore and we have been able hold the amount of renown we have practicly at same spot, being able to stay still at level 90 rocks, hitting 91 each couple days and back to 90 a couple hours after is not so bad, considering the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)

So, if you just dont feel like reading the thing above, just read this: the change is noticeable in a medium size guild thats small due inactive players, as for decay is bearable now.

Cheers!

[eris2323]

Dont know how you will take this, so ill just describe our current state as a guild ^^

First of all, the guild im in is level 90, we have a total of 30 account at the moment and just 8 inactive. The modified size is "Small guild". Thing is that only 4 accounts currently contribute actively to that renown gain, and the others are either casual players or former active players that just loged on to say hi and see whats going on. Before our "DOOM" downfall happened, we were just about to hit level 93, and this Renown change really saved our ship buffs :P, because i did notice the changes, and i like it, since our decay is not so huge anymore and we have been able hold the amount of renown we have practicly at same spot, being able to stay still at level 90 rocks, hitting 91 each couple days and back to 90 a couple hours after is not so bad, considering the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)

So, if you just dont feel like reading the thing above, just read this: the change is noticeable in a medium size guild thats small due inactive players, as for decay is bearable now.

Cheers!

Goodness - a small guild happy with the changes, at high level?

After all the fear, uncertainty and doubt that has been present in these threads, we were led to believe such a thing was impossible, and all small guilds were going to die soon.

Congrats on enjoying the new renown system AND keeping your high level!

If you guys can do it, I guess anyone can... nice to see someone honest enough to post some real, high level info!

[Dandonk]

Dont know how you will take this, so ill just describe our current state as a guild ^^

First of all, the guild im in is level 90, we have a total of 30 account at the moment and just 8 inactive. The modified size is "Small guild". Thing is that only 4 accounts currently contribute actively to that renown gain, and the others are either casual players or former active players that just loged on to say hi and see whats going on. Before our "DOOM" downfall happened, we were just about to hit level 93, and this Renown change really saved our ship buffs :P, because i did notice the changes, and i like it, since our decay is not so huge anymore and we have been able hold the amount of renown we have practicly at same spot, being able to stay still at level 90 rocks, hitting 91 each couple days and back to 90 a couple hours after is not so bad, considering the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)

So, if you just dont feel like reading the thing above, just read this: the change is noticeable in a medium size guild thats small due inactive players, as for decay is bearable now.

Cheers!

Medium guilds do indeed benefit from this. I'm happy for you.

That still doesn't change that small guilds are left behind, though.

[eris2323]

Medium guilds do indeed benefit from this. I'm happy for you.

That still doesn't change that small guilds are left behind, though.

The gentleman has only 4 active players currently, and of those, they are all 'casual' players.

Seems to me their 'small' guild is doing just spiffy.

4 people, keeping a level 91 guild afloat, all alone.

Not bad.

1 more person, and they'd probably hit 100 in no time, under the new system.

And yet, other guilds we hear about are talking about the end of their guilds, because they did not get any help, and it is the end of the world.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM averted.

[eris2323]

"the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)"

We can infer from that they play once a day, when they are not too tired from work.

We have a lot of players like this in our guild. Sometimes that describes me, even, if I've had a busy day.

Nice to know people who can just barely put any time into it, in between work and real life, can raise to such high ranks, with so few people, while still having casual players in a guild!

I think that is a pretty reasonable system - for casual players, small guilds, large guilds, and medium guilds...

[slarden]

I originally posted this in a thread that has since been closed. I have re-posted it here in hopes that it will provide some reasonable ideas for where we might go from here.


The problem is any decay that is applied over short periods (less than a month) is inherently discriminatory against casual players. Decay takes away progress and casual players are active so rarely that taking away progress daily or weekly essentially insures that the casual players never progress at all. What the devs have done is made it so that large and, to a lesser degree, medium sized guilds can absorb that decay and thus provide a home for casual players and still be able to advance. But, as many have pointed out, this does not help casual players who wish to remain in small and tiny guilds.

So my first recommendation is to try to convince the devs to eliminate decay entirely.

If that fails, then we could try to convince the devs to change the formula for the guild size component in the decay calculations. In the current system, the guild size component is fixed at 20. I would propose changeing that to min(20,actual guild size), where actual guild size is just the number of active accounts in the guild. This will at least get the tiny guilds some relief from decay.

If the devs cannot be convinced to reduce decay any more than they already have, then we can try to convince them to increase the small guild bonuses so that tiny guilds get some extra renown earned to make up for the extra decay they are being forced to endure.

If all of that fails, then my recommendation for casual players is to join a larger guild if you really want to level up. If you don't care about guild level, then you are free to choose a small or tiny guild but be aware that you will be hurting that guild's ability to level up.

I like the idea. Or maybe set it to min (20 , max (guild size, 10)) which is effectively the same thing but putting a 50% limit on the benefit a guild of 10 or less gets.

Another option is to change it from min (20) to min (10) and be done with it if they want this type of system in place where decay is fixed regardless of guild size. This benefits all guilds and larger guilds continue to benefit the most. It's a step closer to removing decay without removing it.

Decay creates a ceiling that causes guilds to stop advancing once they hit the point there decay > avg renown earned. They move within a level range and can't make real progress unless activity level increases. Based on gulid size, here is a where a guild get stuck under the new test system based on 20 (column 2) and a system that is identical but based on 10 (column 3).

This chart shows where a guild of a specific size (column 1) that was stalled @ level 60 under the old system would stall under the new system (fixed 20) and a slightly modified version of that system (fixed 10)

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a519/slarden/GuildCeiling.jpg

As thsober said I would like to see decay removed since manipulating the formula only trades one problem for another. But if we need decay at all I think "10" makes more sense than "20". The guilds with 20 or less people are getting a benefit now, but that benefit is very short-lived and will only slightly increase the level they get stuck at.

One of the reasons I think a "test period" is very misleading for this type of change is that all guilds with 11 or more people will immediately start moving forward, but at some point that progress will stop as they simply hit a new ceiling. The smaller the guild, the faster they hit the new ceiling level where they are stuck under this new proposed system.

In addition, since adding a new player doesn't create additional decay, I think all guilds should lose 100% of the renown generated for booting a character that was active in the last 90 days. It should be based on character activity and not account activity since there is no way to know if someone just made a favor toon on another server.

I also think they should lower the level for augment slots, ships and amenities by maybe 20. That is really the only reason to care about level ... at least for me.

[smatt]

Since decay is built into the system in order to create a situation where guilds have to continue the upkeep as it were renown-wise... What if renown decay was removed completely... Instead, shorten the lifespan of the various ameneties, and increase the price VERY significantly, with modifiers in place according to guild size. Change the way those ameneties are purchased and applied, so that guilds can't "stock-up". In other words applied automatically upon purchase. Of course such a system would need some more thinking behind it.


Just a random Sunday morning thought.....

[eris2323]

I like the idea. Or maybe set it to min (20 , max (guild size, 10)) which is effectively the same thing but putting a 50% limit on the benefit a guild of 10 or less gets.

Another option is to change it from min (20) to min (10) and be done with it if they want this type of system in place where decay is fixed regardless of guild size. This benefits all guilds and larger guilds continue to benefit the most. It's a step closer to removing decay without removing it.

Decay creates a ceiling that causes guilds to stop advancing once they hit the point there decay > avg renown earned. They move within a level range and can't make real progress unless activity level increases. Based on gulid size, here is a where a guild get stuck under the new test system based on 20 (column 2) and a system that is identical but based on 10 (column 3).

This chart shows where a guild of a specific size (column 1) that was stalled @ level 60 under the old system would stall under the new system (fixed 20) and a slightly modified version of that system (fixed 10)

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a519/slarden/GuildCeiling.jpg

As thsober said I would like to see decay removed since manipulating the formula only trades one problem for another. But if we need decay at all I think "10" makes more sense than "20". The guilds with 20 or less people are getting a benefit now, but that benefit is very short-lived and will only slightly increase the level they get stuck at.

One of the reasons I think a "test period" is very misleading for this type of change is that all guilds with 11 or more people will immediately start moving forward, but at some point that progress will stop as they simply hit a new ceiling. The smaller the guild, the faster they hit the new ceiling level where they are stuck under this new proposed system.

I also think they should lower the level for augment slots, ships and amenities by maybe 20. That is really the only reason to care about level ... at least for me.

Your chart does not seem to explain how 4 players who only play after work are keeping a level 91 guild afloat

[theslimshady]

In addition, since adding a new player doesn't create additional decay, I think all guilds should lose 100% of the renown generated for booting a character that was active in the last 90 days. It should be based on character activity and not account activity since there is no way to know if someone just made a favor toon on another server..


i think we are getting some good ideas in this thread now but i dont like this no matter what there are players that need to be booted {ie acting bad} and if anything they should have to give the guild there renown for there actions

[Hordo]

Your chart does not seem to explain how 4 players who only play after work are keeping a level 91 guild afloat

How dare you bring facts into this discussion! SHAME ON YOU! :rolleyes:

[slarden]

How dare you bring facts into this discussion! SHAME ON YOU! :rolleyes:

It is a fact that under the old system guilds of all sizes had a chance to advance to level 100 if all the player in the guild were highly active.

The system was changed for large guilds to drop the decay significantly which means each member in the guild doesn't have as much decay and the guild will be able to advance if it was stuck. This ultimately lowers the activity requirement for each member in the guild. I concede the point that there are guilds able to advance under the old system. Far less than 1% of the small guilds were able to advance beyond 90 and only a few large guilds (not sure on the percentages). So yes advancement was defintely possible under the old and the test approach.

The issue many are raising is the current double standard. If I am a member of a small guild I must earn 10x more renown (after factoring in small guild bonus) than someone else in a larger guild to cover my decay tax. That is a fact and It's an issue that should be looked at by Turbine because players should not be penalized greater for choosing to be in a small guild.

Under the old system decay unfairly favored small gulds slightly. Under the new system decay favors large gulds greatly. Let's just lower it for everyone and make it fair. Or better yet get rid of it. 50,000,000 renown is still going to take some time even without decay.

Small guilds aren't asking for an easier time leveling, only that the decay be reduced fairly as it was for other guilds.

If we are making the arguments that we want to compare one guild's activity to another and rank based solely on player activity, that would really be a request to go back to the old system. Other than a slight glitch in their decay formula, the system was fair in the sense that all guilds with all of their members highly active would get to 100 regardless of size. As many pointed out this isn't a reality for large guilds or the vast majority of small guilds. We accept members that don't generate much renown. I've already shown how that old decay formula could be fixed easily so that it doesn't favor small guilds if we want to compare guilds based on activity.

[old-school]

The problem I have now is the same one I have always had with the guild system: the amount of renown required is so high and values that actually drop are so low that advancement for a small guild essentially stops long before reaching a worthwhile lvl, making it pointless to even try.

Case in point: my guild has 3-5 active players (all VIP and each playing 6-10 hours per week), plus 2-3 casual (VIP playing 3-5 hrs per week), along with 2-3 almost none existent members (not sure if they ever play) and 5 that stopped playing a long time ago (bugs, boredom, better things to do). We have been stuck in the limbo between lvl 36 and 38 for over six months and I have absolutely no hope of ever getting to, let alone beyond, lvl 40 in my lifetime, no matter how frequently we play.

As far as my guild is concerned we do not buy ship buffs (they are for the most part worthless at our lvl anyway) and we play as if they don't exists. If Turbine really wants us to care and participate then they will need to level the playing field by providing enough renown for us to be involved (and no - we will not spend TP on elixirs. Pay to win = fail). Until then, have fun with the system you have. We are stuck having fun without it.

[smatt]

Your chart does not seem to explain how 4 players who only play after work are keeping a level 91 guild afloat


So wait, Slarden is in a 4 man guild that is level 91 and holding?

[Thayion516]

The problem I have now is the same one I have always had with the guild system: the amount of renown required is so high and values that actually drop are so low that advancement for a small guild essentially stops long before reaching a worthwhile lvl, making it pointless to even try.

Case in point: my guild has 3-5 active players (all VIP and each playing 6-10 hours per week), plus 2-3 casual (VIP playing 3-5 hrs per week), along with 2-3 almost none existent members (not sure if they ever play) and 5 that stopped playing a long time ago (bugs, boredom, better things to do). We have been stuck in the limbo between lvl 36 and 38 for over six months and I have absolutely no hope of ever getting to, let alone beyond, lvl 40 in my lifetime, no matter how frequently we play.

As far as my guild is concerned we do not buy ship buffs (they are for the most part worthless at our lvl anyway) and we play as if they don't exists. If Turbine really wants us to care and participate then they will need to level the playing field by providing enough renown for us to be involved (and no - we will not spend TP on elixirs. Pay to win = fail). Until then, have fun with the system you have. We are stuck having fun without it.

Hmmm ..

DDOwiki says:

Present guild decay modifier for Lv 38 guild = 20.577000
Present Decay formula is Modifier*(10+10) = 20.577000*20 = 411 renown decay every 24hrs. .. 411.

8 person guild bonus is an additional 270%. X+X*2.70.

One Tales of Valor (150) calculates to 150+150*2.70 = 555 renown. Overcovers decay with one loot.

None of your players are getting 1 Tales of Valor or better a day on average? Between all your players?

1 Legendary Victory would cover your decay for more then a week.

Im sorry i have to ask: What are you members doing? Crafting all day?

[Thayion516]

yes we are a level 70 guild. We typically lose decay daily during the week and then depending on how much we play on the weekend either break even for the week or gain a bit. We sometimes make big pushs where we focus on renown.

Yes that is the same decay we had before the change. The decay tax is only a problem for small guilds with the new system.


2 are active. Renown pulls depend on what we do. If I run lords of dust chain I get very little renown. If I run the demon web chain I get quite a bit. We ran all the eveningstar quests on EE this weekend so we got good renown. What we get depends on what we do. Often time we feel obligated to run certain quests for renown to keep from dropping a level or to make a push to move up.

If our less active face to face friends are on during the weekend we usually run lower level quests at a fairly slow pace and will definitely drop back for the week.


It depends. I was quite busy with work and only played 12 days in a 6 week period during the summer although I usually logged in a bit to chat. We lost 300k or so during that time. We play most days. 1-3 hours during the weeknights and maybe 5-6 during the weekend.

The other active person spends alot of time on beta so we often lose renown when he is testing out the new content on beta. He was in the first party to complete CITW with a severely short-manned team. I think he is going to stop doing that though so we don't lose renown.


So wait, Slarden is in a 4 man guild that is level 91 and holding?

NO, Slarden is 1 of 2 people Active in his LV70+ Guild that is only one focused on gaining renown for his guild. above.

The LV90 Comment was in regards to this: 4 People in a Lv90+ guild focusing on renown. below.


Dont know how you will take this, so ill just describe our current state as a guild ^^

First of all, the guild im in is level 90, we have a total of 30 account at the moment and just 8 inactive. The modified size is "Small guild". Thing is that only 4 accounts currently contribute actively to that renown gain, and the others are either casual players or former active players that just loged on to say hi and see whats going on. Before our "DOOM" downfall happened, we were just about to hit level 93, and this Renown change really saved our ship buffs :P, because i did notice the changes, and i like it, since our decay is not so huge anymore and we have been able hold the amount of renown we have practicly at same spot, being able to stay still at level 90 rocks, hitting 91 each couple days and back to 90 a couple hours after is not so bad, considering the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)

So, if you just dont feel like reading the thing above, just read this: the change is noticeable in a medium size guild thats small due inactive players, as for decay is bearable now.

Cheers!

[old-school]

Hmmm ..

1 Legendary Victory would cover your decay for more then a week.

Im sorry i have to ask: What are you members doing? Crafting all day?

Did you not read my post? I am not commenting on decay, but the system in general and the level of renown available. I just soloed Beyond the Rift on EN and received less than 500 renown. According to the Wiki to progress from level 36 (2,332,800 ) to level 38 ( 2,743,600 ) requires 410,800 renown. At the rate we see renown – maybe 1-2 k per session that still would require 200 - 300 playing sessions. To move to level 40 will requires over 450k more – another +/- 300 playing sessions. 500 - 600 sessions total to progress 4 levels. No we are not power gaming super geniuses, just average folks with normal lives, and it has become apparent to us many aspects of this game are not geared toward that demographic.

As I said, have fun playing the game. We still try, just without guild rewards.

[Tshober]

Did you not read my post? I am not commenting on decay, but the system in general and the level of renown available. I just soloed Beyond the Rift on EN and received less than 500 renown. According to the Wiki to progress from level 36 (2,332,800 ) to level 38 ( 2,743,600 ) requires 410,800 renown. At the rate we see renown – maybe 1-2 k per session that still would require 200 - 300 playing sessions. To move to level 40 will requires over 450k more – another +/- 300 playing sessions. 500 - 600 sessions total to progress 4 levels. No we are not power gaming super geniuses, just average folks with normal lives, and it has become apparent to us many aspects of this game are not geared toward that demographic.

As I said, have fun playing the game. We still try, just without guild rewards.


I must confess, I read your initial post the same way Thayion516 did. Most of the discussion here has focussed on decay and so I just assumed so would your post. Having re-read it I see my mistake.

I am curious, how long did it take you to get to your current level? Was your guild more active and/or larger in the past?

[old-school]

I must confess, I read your initial post the same way Thayion516 did. Most of the discussion here has focussed on decay and so I just assumed so would your post. Having re-read it I see my mistake.

I am curious, how long did it take you to get to your current level? Was your guild more active and/or larger in the past?

Here is the first part of the original OP:

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.

My comments were directed generally at the "optimizing guild size" and "gain or maintain guild levels" portion of the discussion. I know a lot has been written here (and elsewhere) about decay, but my concerns are more basic.

To your specific questions, it has taken since guild renown was first introduced to get to our current level (just shy of 38). And, yes my guild was larger at the start. We began several years ago (before scaling, before guild ships, before the DDO Store). We had ten active members and in several months of playing, usually twice a week or so for 5-6 hours we all capped several toons. When guild ships arrived some members left to join larger guilds and others drifted away to other games. About a year ago we got the old band back together and progressed a new set of mains to about 12 lvl. Then bugs, dissatisfaction with the (then) new content and general malaise lead to same result - attrition. In the mean time several others have joined but we never got back to glory of the good old days.

[Chaos000]

In the current system, the guild size component is fixed at 20. I would propose changeing that to min(20,actual guild size), where actual guild size is just the number of active accounts in the guild. This will at least get the tiny guilds some relief from decay.

I actually like this idea where in guilds 20 or less has their formula for decay adjusted to the number of active accounts in the guild. To prevent abuse I do propose that once the guild exceeds 20 active, the formula remains fixed therefore there is no incentive to recruit and expanding with the intent to reduce in size at a later time.



If the devs cannot be convinced to reduce decay any more than they already have, then we can try to convince them to increase the small guild bonuses so that tiny guilds get some extra renown earned to make up for the extra decay

While initially i agreed with this position, I've since amended my feelings on this. Reduction of decay is preferable to increasing small guild bonuses. Small guild bonuses are tricky, once you create a situation where bonuses favor a small guild enough that they would benefit more than a guild two or three or four times+ their size, it becomes less desireable for existing guilds to add any new players unless the new members have a level of activity that offsets the benefits a that the guild would otherwise lose by increasing in size. As a counter point, in certain cases a guild would also find themselves with more to gain by reducing their number as opposed to adding more.

It should never be a benefit to reducing in size and always be a benefit to adding more. At the same time it should *still* be viable for a guild of ANY size to progress without having to increase in size or reduce in number.

Reduction of decay to near non-existent amounts at lower levels that progresses up and caps out at a guild size of 50 meanwhile removing the bonuses entirely may be the way to go as it does away with the "ideal" guild size and allows all guilds to continue to progress.

[Artos_Fabril]

Although it may not be a great idea to add another potentially bugged or exploitable currency system to the game, it would be a better way to deal with the renown system to eliminate size/level based decay, and instead make amenities purchased directly with renown. Then guilds only pay for the benefits that they use, and they can make more meaningful choices about using renown.

[slarden]

Hmmm ..

DDOwiki says:

Present guild decay modifier for Lv 38 guild = 20.577000
Present Decay formula is Modifier*(10+10) = 20.577000*20 = 411 renown decay every 24hrs. .. 411.

8 person guild bonus is an additional 270%. X+X*2.70.

One Tales of Valor (150) calculates to 150+150*2.70 = 555 renown. Overcovers decay with one loot.

None of your players are getting 1 Tales of Valor or better a day on average? Between all your players?

1 Legendary Victory would cover your decay for more then a week.

Im sorry i have to ask: What are you members doing? Crafting all day?

If you were directing this to my guild you would have a point.

However, If you ever run with truly casual players, they don't rush the dungeons. They are not there to maximize xp/minute or get loot. While it may be hard for you to understand why it takes so long to get renown, it really is a function of how you play the game.

1) If you run the quests slowly you may only run one dungeon in an evening. I run with experienced people that take time and I know when I group with these folks I will probably only get one quest in the whole night. There is a lot of chat before the quest and we sometimes wait for people to see if they log on. Then the quest itself takes longer.
2) If you run quests at lower difficulties you get less renown
3) If you run quests at lower levels you get less renown
4) If you are ftp and you are grinding for xp, you will run alot of quests @ ransack for certain levels getting only 10% xp per quest because there is nothing else to run. You won't get any renown.

Again I feel compelled to point out the double standard. We made this change to help casual players - and the casual players in large guilds were helped with a massive decay reduction. This person pointed out the difficulty in getting renown which I think is a valid concern.

When someone from a small guild raises the issue, the answer is always some variation of "you should be able to do better". If activity is a prerequisite for advancing we should really go back to the old system - that was an activity based system that was fair with the exception of one minor glitch in their decay formula that is easily correctible. However, if we want to go to a progress-based system (reduced decay so players don't lose as much renown they earned) where it is easier to advance, we need to include small guilds like his in the party.

One obvious question I have is where is Turbine in all this? It seems extremely odd that they asked for one week of comments and never actually told us whether this system is permanent and/or what the plan is for the guilds of 10 or less that were completely left out and the guilds of 11-40 that got some benefit but should get more.

If you didn't really care about our comments/concerns Turbine, why did you ask? Why can't you give us an update on this issue since around 100 people form tiny/small guilds took the time to comment and there were many common concerns.

[slarden]

I actually like this idea where in guilds 20 or less has their formula for decay adjusted to the number of active accounts in the guild. To prevent abuse I do propose that once the guild exceeds 20 active, the formula remains fixed therefore there is no incentive to recruit and expanding with the intent to reduce in size at a later time.




While initially i agreed with this position, I've since amended my feelings on this. Reduction of decay is preferable to increasing small guild bonuses. Small guild bonuses are tricky, once you create a situation where bonuses favor a small guild enough that they would benefit more than a guild two or three or four times+ their size, it becomes less desireable for existing guilds to add any new players unless the new members have a level of activity that offsets the benefits a that the guild would otherwise lose by increasing in size. As a counter point, in certain cases a guild would also find themselves with more to gain by reducing their number as opposed to adding more.

It should never be a benefit to reducing in size and always be a benefit to adding more. At the same time it should *still* be viable for a guild of ANY size to progress without having to increase in size or reduce in number.

Reduction of decay to near non-existent amounts at lower levels that progresses up and caps out at a guild size of 50 meanwhile removing the bonuses entirely may be the way to go as it does away with the "ideal" guild size and allows all guilds to continue to progress.

I tend to agree that raising renown bonus is not the right answer even though it would likely be beneficial for my guild that is very proficient at farming renown when needed.

If you drew a chart that tracked three things - activity level, renown earned and decay you would find the following relationships:

1) Guilds that have the highest activity levels would benefit from the higher renown bonus and the same decay we have presently.
2) Guilds with lower activity rates would benefit some from higher guild bonsues, but decay will continue to be their biggest challenge

Thus, highly active guilds would benefit the most from an increased guild bonus. In addition, users of guild elixirs would benefit highly. The guilds most in need of help are the more casual guilds which would benefit least from an increased guild bonus. The guilds that would benefit the most from a higher guild bonus would be the guilds already on the leader boards.

I believe decay is where the adjustment should be made just like it was for large guilds. The math of the small guild bonus makes sense to me except I think they need to severely flatten the curve instead of having a peak at exactly 6 members. Perhaps a 200% bonus for levels 2-12 instead of the current bell curve centered around 6.

Turbine has not explained why we need to keep decay at all I think it makes no sense to make it a significant issue for people in small guilds and insignificant for people in large guilds. Pick your poison Turbine - activity based or progress based - just make it consistent for all guilds.

[McFlay]

One obvious question I have is where is Turbine in all this? It seems extremely odd that they asked for one week of comments and never actually told us whether this system is permanent and/or what the plan is for the guilds of 10 or less that were completely left out and the guilds of 11-40 that got some benefit but should get more.

I'll answer it for you. Turbine is busy smashing their heads against the wall at the position they dug themselves in to. Do they...

A. Leave the system as is and telling everyone who enjoys a guild on the smaller side of the spectrum to enjoy the turd sandwich.

B. Move back towards a decay system that scales by members, which apparently doesn't sit well with some guilds that are a mix of casual/hardcore gamers that enjoy their guild but can't stand the fact they might not see 100.

C. Give everyone a giant easy button so we can all have maxxed level guilds, so we can all feel special we get to grab the power up and win the game!

[smatt]

If you didn't really care about our comments/concerns Turbine, why did you ask? Why can't you give us an update on this issue since around 100 people form tiny/small guilds took the time to comment and there were many common concerns.


*Sigh... Just because they don't comment doesnt' mean they're not reading.... Or skimming... You do understand that they have other thigns to do but spend 40 hours a week replying to 1,000 threads on the forums right? I'm pretty sure they're nto done as they said, as far as tweaks on the guild renwon system. But with so many variables, tweakign it in a way that does what they want it to do without creating hugely exploitble situations is tough.

Of course threads liek this do offer them ideas... But after the same person has said the same thing 150 times.......Well......... They will stop reading...

[Dysmetria]

I actually like this idea where in guilds 20 or less has their formula for decay adjusted to the number of active accounts in the guild. To prevent abuse I do propose that once the guild exceeds 20 active, the formula remains fixed therefore there is no incentive to recruit and expanding with the intent to reduce in size at a later time.This could still be abused. Large guilds could make a second guild with just their most active 6 or 19 or whatever members, zerg it up to 100, then add the rest of their more casual members to it, but excluding those casuals in the meantime. Meanwhile small guilds would be encouraged to kick their casuals to lower their decay rates. The kicking and excluding of casuals and new players are what the recent change addressed, so any further changes should not go back to encouraging such behavior.

As it is now, the renown system allows guilds of all sizes to benefit from adding casuals and new players to their ranks. That is as it should be. If a guild of any size wants to gain renown faster, all they have to do is recruit more members to help them do so.

[slarden]

*Sigh... Just because they don't comment doesnt' mean they're not reading.... Or skimming... You do understand that they have other thigns to do but spend 40 hours a week replying to 1,000 threads on the forums right? I'm pretty sure they're nto done as they said, as far as tweaks on the guild renwon system. But with so many variables, tweakign it in a way that does what they want it to do without creating hugely exploitble situations is tough.

Of course threads liek this do offer them ideas... But after the same person has said the same thing 150 times.......Well......... They will stop reading...

Believe me I don't want to spend any time at all posting on this topic. I rarely post and only even found this thread after my guild was hit hard by the new guild renown ransack penalty after leveling. Before that I had no idea there was even a change.

Unfortunately my posts and those of others just get buried in alot of messages so how do I know they are even getting the feedback. If they indicate they are going to address the disparity between small guild members and large guilds members I will gladly stop posting, but I don't even know if they read all the comments from small guilds. I am not the only person posting alot on this thread :) It's obviously a topic many people care about.

But I do understand your point.

[slarden]

This could still be abused. Large guilds could make a second guild with just their most active 6 or 19 or whatever members, zerg it up to 100, then add the rest of their more casual members to it, but excluding those casuals in the meantime. Meanwhile small guilds would be encouraged to kick their casuals to lower their decay rates. The kicking and excluding of casuals and new players are what the recent change addressed, so any further changes should not go back to encouraging such behavior.

As it is now, the renown system allows guilds of all sizes to benefit from adding casuals and new players to their ranks. That is as it should be. If a guild of any size wants to gain renown faster, all they have to do is recruit more members to help them do so.

You keep referring to small guilds kicking their casuals but wasn't this really a large guild problem? First of all I fail to see why lowering decay will cause guilds to kick casuals - it makes no sense. Small guilds tend to add people they want to add rather than through mass recruiting. They know the people before they add them to the guild.

If they were going to kick casuals they would have already done it as decay is the thing that would prevent leveling. If all of a sudden decay is lowered and the small guild is able to level, why would they decide to all of a sudden kick casuals when they didn't do it already? It makes no sense at all. This is the real fear mongering going on here.

In addition, you can't just zerg a guild up to 100 with a small group- you need 50,000,000 renown. That is a process that would take several years and if a guild could do it - they wouldn't have a problem doing it in a large guild where the decay tax is so small anyhow. 50,000,000 renown is earned much easier with 300 vs. 10 even if the other 290 folks consist of a high percentage of casuals. All you have to do is look at the large guilds of Sarlona. They have gained several levels since the change.

Anyhow I proposed a 100% penalty for kicking members that have been active in the last 90 days and no small guilds protested. The only protests were from large guilds.

Ultimately if we are are worried about guilds kicking casuals to game the system we should implement a simple full-proof method. A 100% penalty for booting a player. If a player is booted, the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. The only guilds that can lose here are small guilds that lose 100% of the renown and had a smaller guild bonus for the other members. Yet no small guilds protested this suggestion. Why? They rarely boot members. It's quite the opposite, many of these booted or disenfranchised ex-large guild members end in a small guild.

[Tshober]

You keep referring to small guilds kicking their casuals but wasn't this really a large guild problem? First of all I fail to see why lowering decay will cause guilds to kick casuals - it makes no sense. Small guilds tend to add people they want to add rather than through mass recruiting. They know the people before they add them to the guild.

If they were going to kick casuals they would have already done it as decay is the thing that would prevent leveling. If all of a sudden decay is lowered and the small guild is able to level, why would they decide to all of a sudden kick casuals when they didn't do it already? It makes no sense at all. This is the real fear mongering going on here.

In addition, you can't just zerg a guild up to 100 with a small group- you need 50,000,000 renown. That is a process that would take several years and if a guild could do it - they wouldn't have a problem doing it in a large guild where the decay tax is so small anyhow. 50,000,000 renown is earned much easier with 300 vs. 10 even if the other 290 folks consist of a high percentage of casuals. All you have to do is look at the large guilds of Sarlona. They have gained several levels since the change.

Anyhow I proposed a 100% penalty for kicking members that have been active in the last 90 days and no small guilds protested. The only protests were from large guilds.

Ultimately if we are are worried about guilds kicking casuals to game the system we should implement a simple full-proof method. A 100% penalty for booting a player. If a player is booted, the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. The only guilds that can lose here are small guilds that lose 100% of the renown and had a smaller guild bonus for the other members. Yet no small guilds protested this suggestion. Why? They rarely boot members. It's quite the opposite, many of these booted or disenfranchised ex-large guild members end in a small guild.

I agree that the incentive to boot players is just not there. You would be better off to keep them, from a renown perspective. Likewise it would make no sense for a large guild to split off to a smaller one, when the larger one would be more likely to level faster anyway. Not seeing the abuse possibility. Maybe someone could come up with an example to show how it would reward an abuser? I don't see it.

I would be okay with your 100% renown penalty for kicking players IF we are only talking about ACTIVE players. Players who have left the game should not cost guilds a huge penalty when they get rid of them. This is particularly important because the guild size cap counts all characters, even inactive ones. Alternatively, they could make it so the guild size cap does not count inactive characters.

[slarden]

I agree that the incentive to boot players is just not there. You would be better off to keep them, from a renown perspective. Likewise it would make no sense for a large guild to split off to a smaller one, when the larger one would be more likely to level faster anyway. Not seeing the abuse possibility. Maybe someone could come up with an example to show how it would reward an abuser? I don't see it.

I would be okay with your 100% renown penalty for kicking players IF we are only talking about ACTIVE players. Players who have left the game should not cost guilds a huge penalty when they get rid of them. This is particularly important because the guild size cap counts all characters, even inactive ones. Alternatively, they could make it so the guild size cap does not count inactive characters.

Yes absolutely. Only characters that were active in the last 90 days would generate the penalty. And it would be based on character activity rather than account activity. I am not sure Turbine can implement this but I assume they could since it shows right on the guild page the last login date of the character. The "account" basis seems problematic to me as guild leaders can't know all the alts and shouldn't be penalized for booting a character that was inactive even if the account was still active.

[Gremmlynn]

i think we are getting some good ideas in this thread now but i dont like this no matter what there are players that need to be booted {ie acting bad} and if anything they should have to give the guild there renown for there actionsI disagree. I don't see how a guild deserves any sort of compensation for having recruited the bad apple to begin with as it costs the guild nothing to recruit and maintain such players. While a 100% penalty would prevent exploiting players for any sort of gain. It also helps prevent petty bootings as a guilds leadership has to weigh the amount of disruption the player causes against the amount of renown doing so will cost them. In most valid cases, it would seem the bad apples would sort themselves out before this cost becomes to high.

[Gremmlynn]

Again I feel compelled to point out the double standard. We made this change to help casual players - and the casual players in large guilds were helped with a massive decay reduction. This person pointed out the difficulty in getting renown which I think is a valid concern.This I'm going to have to disagree with. It wasn't made to make it easier for casual players to make their decay quotas. It was to remove those per player quotas and make active players no longer see casual players as nothing but unproductive mouths to feed.

[Dandonk]

This I'm going to have to disagree with. It wasn't made to make it easier for casual players to make their decay quotas. It was to remove those per player quotas and make active players no longer see casual players as nothing but unproductive mouths to feed.

But only as long as those casuals are not in small guilds.

[Gremmlynn]

I'll answer it for you. Turbine is busy smashing their heads against the wall at the position they dug themselves in to. Do they...

A. Leave the system as is and telling everyone who enjoys a guild on the smaller side of the spectrum to enjoy the turd sandwich.

B. Move back towards a decay system that scales by members, which apparently doesn't sit well with some guilds that are a mix of casual/hardcore gamers that enjoy their guild but can't stand the fact they might not see 100.

C. Give everyone a giant easy button so we can all have maxxed level guilds, so we can all feel special we get to grab the power up and win the game!Well lets see.

A. Well if small guilds feel they are eating a turd sandwich now, then they must have always felt they were eating a turd sandwich.

B. What's the benefit to moving back to a system in which most of the player base feels they are eating a turd sandwich, just so a few "hard core" players can feel superior?

C. This is the obvious choice as making all of one's customers feel special is a good business practice.

[Son_of_the_South]

Hello Son of the South,

Please explain to me where the rant is in my post? As u should know Turbine asked guilds to give there opinion about recent changes to the guild decay system and that's simply what i did. That your and my opinion about the new system are different seems clear to me, but why call my post childish?

Its funny that u state your guild has been level 63 for a year and that now, with the recent change, your guild advanced to 65. Didn't i say that the new system took away the challenge? Here's the example of it. Good luck 'cruising' to level 66 and be sure to stay proud of it.

Because you made assumptions and assertions that some guilds are not working hard for their advancement. You cannot know this and sweeping generalisations seem childish to me but i can understand that we have different views on the matter and i do wish your guild all prosperity.

[DocBenway]

...

A. Well if small guilds feel they are eating a turd sandwich now, then they must have always felt they were eating a turd sandwich....

The taste of gourmet cuisine wasn't lingering in my mouth when I posted the still unanswered thread asking why the minimum sizes existed back in February.
:p

[slarden]

Well lets see.

A. Well if small guilds feel they are eating a turd sandwich now, then they must have always felt they were eating a turd sandwich.

B. What's the benefit to moving back to a system in which most of the player base feels they are eating a turd sandwich, just so a few "hard core" players can feel superior?

C. This is the obvious choice as making all of one's customers feel special is a good business practice.

There are choices besides just keeping the new system and reverting to the old system. If we think it's important to reduce decay, we can also do so for guilds of 10 or less. We should also do more for guilds in the 11-30 range.

Those of us in small guilds question the motives of people that argue that guilds of 10 or less should get no decay reduction at all. This makes no sense when other guilds are getting 80%, 90%, 93.5% reductions in decay while guilds of 10 or less received no benefit. I am sure that Turbine has the data and hopefully the factor level in when they look at advancement. Obviously level 1 small guilds are going to advance very quick and could skew the #s.

[theslimshady]

I disagree. I don't see how a guild deserves any sort of compensation for having recruited the bad apple to begin with as it costs the guild nothing to recruit and maintain such players. While a 100% penalty would prevent exploiting players for any sort of gain. It also helps prevent petty bootings as a guilds leadership has to weigh the amount of disruption the player causes against the amount of renown doing so will cost them. In most valid cases, it would seem the bad apples would sort themselves out before this cost becomes to high.

well you never dealt with drunk ddoers people can be awesome then have a bit much and go nuts guild leaders need to be able to check peeps in there guild and not feel like they have to hold on to someone due to renown

[theslimshady]

Ultimately this is a game and the game needs to be fair. Many of those casuals that were booted by large guilds are now happy members of small guilds. First these folks get booted and now are they punished for choosing a small guild by getting 10x more decay than they would have received in the guild that booted them?

No decay quota was removed for guilds of 10 or less and those guilds have many casual players. Ultimately the move just makes no sense. Turbine needs to address the fairness issue.

Arguing against casual players in small guilds to not get a break is really no argument at all. It's simply trying to give large guilds an advantage and to make it easier for large guilds to recruit vets from small guilds. how many times shall you say the same thing and try and twist the argument large guilds again dont care about you or your guild the reason so many are not reading is cause all your first ideas was about returning to that old busted system ------- the new system is helping alot of guilds on alot of servers that was dealing with issues for over a year and i must say and not to be insulting but your flooding the same thing over and over seems to be unproductive at this point

[Thayion516]

Although it may not be a great idea to add another potentially bugged or exploitable currency system to the game, it would be a better way to deal with the renown system to eliminate size/level based decay, and instead make amenities purchased directly with renown. Then guilds only pay for the benefits that they use, and they can make more meaningful choices about using renown.

YES ABSOLUTELY!! THE BEST ANSWER TO DATE!

Solves almost all problems.

I don't need mathematical formulas and bonuses dictating my moves. Arbitrary values based on someone else's logic.

Give Us Choice, and we will decide for ourselves.

[eris2323]

This argument is still going?

Before the change, we didn't see non-stop repeating messages from certain small guilds about the guild system, because the small guilds were getting the benefit.

Therefore, the system must have been acceptable to them.

Now, suddenly, all those people who formed small guilds are no longer getting the benefit, and they are either a) mad they left their large guild or b) just bitter that someone else is getting a benefit.

For 2 years, you got the benefit.

Now, everyone else in the game is benefiting.

I don't know; but at this time, the renown system looks super fantastic. One casual guild with only 4 players (who only play after work, when they are not too tired) seem to be able to capture and hold level 91, so they seem okay.

A certain other guild has gained levels as well; despite the notable handicap of only playing a few times over the weekend, with almost not guildies on the entire time. Seems like they're still doing well too, despite the numerous complaints about the renown system.

MANY large guilds are extremely happy with the system.

Some of our casual players are coming back, as we have now been able to tell them, "COME BACK FOR A DAY, RENOWN WONT HURT US ANYMORE C'MON LET'S DO A SHROUD".

And yet a couple of you still complain because your tiny group of 5 people isn't getting enough cake.

I am against making it in any way easier for solo and tiny guilds to equal the advancement of a large guild. I guess I will have to keep posting - thought the vast majority of you had realized the benefits to be had from the new system.

[eris2323]

For the record - all those who left us to form small guilds, tiny guilds, or who just got sad we were stuck at the wall for so long....

Doors open, contact an officer for details on what to do to come back. Or just go hit our webpage and follow the directions.

Griffon's Nest - Sarlona

[Impaqt]

YES ABSOLUTELY!! THE BEST ANSWER TO DATE!

Solves almost all problems.

I don't need mathematical formulas and bonuses dictating my moves. Arbitrary values based on someone else's logic.

Give Us Choice, and we will decide for ourselves.

huh?

wouldnt a guild with 100 member be able to buy far more amenities than a guild with 6 still?

This would fix nothing.

[DocBenway]

This argument is still going?
thought the vast majority of you had realized the benefits to be had from the new system.

I thought you had stopped ignoring that everyone has realized the benefits of the new system, just not everyone benefits from those benefits. It is obvious you think a small guild with a bonus is some great injustice that caused people to leave your guild, kill your father and violate your mother. That doesn't change the fact that helping those who were not helped by the change already, hurts and affects you in no way at all and shouldn't evoke such vitriol.

[eris2323]

I thought you had stopped ignoring that everyone has realized the benefits of the new system, just not everyone benefits from those benefits. It is obvious you think a small guild with a bonus is some great injustice that caused people to leave your guild, kill your father and violate your mother. That doesn't change the fact that helping those who were not helped by the change already, hurts and affects you in no way at all and shouldn't evoke such vitriol.

No, I feel that making it so any solo-er can solo a guild to 100 is an insult and a mockery to the guild system, and there is probably a reason that the decay is set to a minimum value of 20.

Suspect the devs agree with me.

I'm not sure why you want to talk about killing my family. Please stop.

[Dandonk]

huh?

wouldnt a guild with 100 member be able to buy far more amenities than a guild with 6 still?

This would fix nothing.

Indeed.

[DocBenway]

No, I feel that making it so any joe schmoe solo-er can solo a guild to 100 is an insult and a mockery to the guild system, and there is probably a reason that the decay is set to a minimum value of 20.


I feel that making statements that classify 1/100th of 1% of the playerbase as any joe schmoe solo-er is an insult to mathematics. Robert Maillet is a local. Does that mean everyone in the tri-county area is over 7 feet tall and played a role in 300? You are painting all small guilds with the same broad brush you hate when it is used to paint large guilds as Korthos spammers.

[eris2323]

I feel that making statements that classify 1/100th of 1% of the playerbase as any joe schmoe solo-er is an insult to mathematics. Robert Maillet is a local. Does that mean everyone in the tri-county area is over 7 feet tall and played a role in 300? You are painting all small guilds with the same broad brush you hate when it is used to paint large guilds as Korthos spammers.

Oh, I'm sorry I offended you with a term I find endearing so much that you then talked about killing my father and violating my mother.

I'll go change 'joe schmoe' to 'person' now solely so you can stop talking about violating my mother, which I take great offence to.

Any further references to violating my mother will be reported immediately.

[DocBenway]

Oh, I'm sorry I offended you with a term I find endearing so much that you then talked about killing my father and violating my mother.

I'll go change 'joe schmoe' to 'person' now solely so you can stop talking about violating my mother, which I take great offence to.

Any further references to violating my mother will be reported immediately.

You didn't offend me, you offended numbers and how they work. Person and joe schmoe are synonymous. Person with red hair and person with blue hair are similar, but not synonymous. ANY person doesn't do what you claim they do, a tiny fraction of a small percent of people do.

Any other perceived insult is a misreading on your part. All references to past slights that you think were inflicted upon you by small guilds were examples chosen due to intensity of vitrol you have displayed toward any small guild.

[eris2323]

You didn't offend me, you offended numbers and how they work. Person and joe schmoe are synonymous. Person with red hair and person with blue hair are similar, but not synonymous. ANY person doesn't do what you claim they do, a tiny fraction of a small percent of people do.

Any other perceived insult is a misreading on your part. All references to past slights that you think were inflicted upon you by small guilds were examples chosen due to intensity of vitrol you have displayed toward any small guild.

Oh, good, so I didn't offend you, but you did extremely offend me.

And not even the courtesy of an apology from you, although I did for you.

You're quality work.

I have no wish to continue speaking with any person or group of people who feel that it is okay to bring the conversation around to the topic of killing peoples families and violating their mothers.

Back in a couple hours, let's let the mods clean up.

[DocBenway]

Oh, good, so I didn't offend you, but you did extremely offend me.

And not even the courtesy of an apology from you, although I did for you.

You're quality work.

I am sorry you were insulted by a hyperbolic example of a slight that some small guild must have caused you in the past, to evoke such kneejerk hate and gnashing of teeth whenever the idea of similar decay relief for small guilds is mentioned.

Just imagine that each time you are accusing all small guilds of being the devil, that some may take your comments "to heart" just as strongly as you misread my example and be just as full of "righteous fury" over perceived slights. Your "I got mine, screw you, you bonus scamming cheaters" post do not help find a resolution. You know you got yours and that change is staying, what stake do you have in making sure not everyone else gets theirs?

[Artos_Fabril]

huh?

wouldnt a guild with 100 member be able to buy far more amenities than a guild with 6 still?

This would fix nothing.
Well, you have a few options to address that.
1) Ignore it: small guilds that earn a lot of renown can get a lot of stuff, less active guilds get less stuff. This is an activity based model that assumes the point of decay is to encourage playing.
2) Make usage caps to each amenity: either by # of accounts able to access, or number of uses. This is a hybrid model in which decay is based on users, so there is less penalty for casuals, but still may lead to more advancement focused guilds to cut low renown producers.
3) make different sizes of each amenity: small for small guilds, large for large guilds. This is just a more controllable version of the bad-old-days of renown decay based on guild size, encouraging cutting casual players.

[eris2323]

I am sorry you were insulted by a hyperbolic example of a slight that some small guild must have caused you in the past, to evoke such kneejerk hate and gnashing of teeth whenever the idea of similar decay relief for small guilds is mentioned.

Just imagine that each time you are accusing all small guilds of being the devil, that some may take your comments "to heart" just as strongly as you misread my example and be just as full of "righteous fury" over perceived slights. Your "I got mine, screw you, you bonus scamming cheaters" post do not help find a resolution. You know you got yours and that change is staying, what stake do you have in making sure not everyone else gets theirs?

I have no interest in talking to anyone who would bring up the violation of my mother in any way shape or form, and this is not an apology, this is simply more insults.

[SirCrazyRob]

Question.. What is the number of active "accounts" that make a "Tiny" guild, "Small" Guild, "Medium" Guild, "Large" Guild, etc etc. for purposes of guild renown bonus'. IE "you recieved 150 guild renown! (50 base 100 medium guild bonus)"
Thanks!
SirCrazyRob aka: Monkiii, Nosmainya, Nostiava, Mythian, Naturespride and on and on and on..LOL on Thelanis server

[eris2323]

Question.. What is the number of active "accounts" that make a "Tiny" guild, "Small" Guild, "Medium" Guild, "Large" Guild, etc etc. for purposes of guild renown bonus'. IE "you recieved 150 guild renown! (50 base 100 medium guild bonus)"
Thanks!
SirCrazyRob aka: Monkiii, Nosmainya, Nostiava, Mythian, Naturespride and on and on and on..LOL on Thelanis server

Here ya go ...

http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

[Gremmlynn]

Ultimately this is a game and the game needs to be fair. Many of those casuals that were booted by large guilds are now happy members of small guilds. First these folks get booted and now are they punished for choosing a small guild by getting 10x more decay than they would have received in the guild that booted them?

No decay quota was removed for guilds of 10 or less and those guilds have many casual players. Ultimately the move just makes no sense. Turbine needs to address the fairness issue.

Arguing against casual players in small guilds to not get a break is really no argument at all. It's simply trying to give large guilds an advantage and to make it easier for large guilds to recruit vets from small guilds.Horse apples. Turbine could care less what positive effect it had on large guilds. The effect on casual players who were getting booted from any size guild was all they were concerned about. Everything else is just a side effect.

[Gremmlynn]

well you never dealt with drunk ddoers people can be awesome then have a bit much and go nuts guild leaders need to be able to check peeps in there guild and not feel like they have to hold on to someone due to renownHow could anyone feel they have to hold on to someone due to renown? If you are going to boot them, then you probably shouldn't have let them in in the first place. So if you had done things right you wouldn't have had that renown in the first place.

Have a problem with a drunk player, ask them to log out. If they don't either eat the renown or put up with them, or simply have everybody /ignore them for the night.

[slarden]

Horse apples. Turbine could care less what positive effect it had on large guilds. The effect on casual players who were getting booted from any size guild was all they were concerned about. Everything else is just a side effect.

Well many of the casual players that were booted from large guilds ended up in small guilds. Now they are getting punished once again by getting 10x more decay than a person in the guild that booted them.

If we want to encourage casual players we would give a fair decay reduction to all guilds not just large guilds. It is achievable to help casual players in all guilds while solving the "booting" problem permanently.

Eliminate decay or reduce decay ratably for all guilds. Impose a 100% penalty on a guild that boots a character that has been active within the last 90 days. If a character is booted, the guild gains nothing and loses nothing for the time the person was in the guild. The booted player doesn't leave 75% of the renown in a guild that booted him. This will eliminate all gaming of the system and should be implemented ASAP.

[Artos_Fabril]

Agreed, his argument is not valid.

The idea that the small guild bonus gives small guilds an "advantage" is ridiculous. All it does is take away some of the obvious disadvantage that a small guilds has.

A guild of 4 needs to earn 50x more renown per player than a guild of 200. With the small guild bonus they only need to earn 20x more renown per player than a guild of 200. Advantage? certainly not. It makes the level climb achievable - not easy.
Why do you insist on continuing to use these ridiculous hyperbolic numbers?

Here's another example that might shed some light on the subject, assuming you're willing to engage in actual thought:

A guild of 6 receives 4000 renown per legendary victory, a guild of 10 receives 3400 renown per legendary victory, neither of these was affected by the change...

The guild of 10 only needs 70% of the renown per person that the guild of 6 needs per level.
But! They need 17.5% more total renown drops.
So here's the question: Why do you think each person in a smaller guild should have to work harder than a larger guild, but a larger guild should have to work harder in total than a smaller guild?

Might it have something to do with the fact that a guild of 4 and a guild of 10 get the same size bonus, but the guild of 10 has 2.5 times as many people to collect renown, yet both were unaffected by the change to decay?

Since they deny trying to encourage any particular guild size, either they're lying, or there's something being taken into account here that isn't reflected in the basic math. Perhaps it's the belief that there should be some reward for coordinating larger groups of people, or that it is more difficult to keep larger groups on-task. Or, possibly, it's a recognition that community is what keeps people playing MMOs, so while they aren't out to encourage any particular guild size, it is in their own interest to encourage people to form those communities.

[McFlay]

No, I feel that making it so any solo-er can solo a guild to 100 is an insult and a mockery to the guild system, and there is probably a reason that the decay is set to a minimum value of 20.

Suspect the devs agree with me.

I think they would too. That's why under the old system, even with the small guild bonuses, guilds of 1-5 already had to pull the most renown per player to level, and had the highest rate of decay per player. This still holds true under the new system. Proceed to argue your irrelevant point though, I'm sure the devs will take it into consideration while they continue to work on the decay system.

The issue isn't small guilds complaining about how much renown they have to pull to level, its that it is ludicrous to expect them to deal with 10x, 20x, or decay per player per day more then large guilds.

[Enoach]

I just want to pop in a make a few points to clear some things up.

First, the call for the change in guild renown was not done to stop guilds from kicking casual players. It was done so guilds didn't have to make the choice between members and gaining guild levels. If you look at many of the posts that lead up to this it was a guild leader/officer staff having inward problems having to make a decision to remove people because they were deemed not earning enough renown to offset the decay level the guild was receiving.

Second, the change to decay that was implemented flattened the decay for all guilds. Looking at guilds regardless of size each one has to earn the same amount of renown to satisfy decay. However, dividing that out by member takes on the assumption that all members are equal. What we learned from the outcry of Guilds that were stagnated by the previous Guild Decay amounts was that this was not true all guild members are not equal in their playtime or contribution to renown.

Arguments about size, who contributes more, what makes a guild etc. are doing nothing more than pulling attention away from the problem at hand, causing bitterness and malcontent. Lets get back to the constructive side keep up the ideas on how we the player base see how renown should be used. Keep the focus on allowing us the player base to decide what we want our Guilds to be, keep them focused on allowing them to be defined by us the player base (their customer).

I stand behind my previous statement about Turbine taking a step in the right direction. I'm still waiting for the next step, be it the removal of decay, changing decay to be based off a guilds monthly average attendance or something else.

[theslimshady]

I just want to pop in a make a few points to clear some things up.

First, the call for the change in guild renown was not done to stop guilds from kicking casual players. It was done so guilds didn't have to make the choice between members and gaining guild levels. If you look at many of the posts that lead up to this it was a guild leader/officer staff having inward problems having to make a decision to remove people because they were deemed not earning enough renown to offset the decay level the guild was receiving.

Second, the change to decay that was implemented flattened the decay for all guilds. Looking at guilds regardless of size each one has to earn the same amount of renown to satisfy decay. However, dividing that out by member takes on the assumption that all members are equal. What we learned from the outcry of Guilds that were stagnated by the previous Guild Decay amounts was that this was not true all guild members are not equal in their playtime or contribution to renown.

Arguments about size, who contributes more, what makes a guild etc. are doing nothing more than pulling attention away from the problem at hand, causing bitterness and malcontent. Lets get back to the constructive side keep up the ideas on how we the player base see how renown should be used. Keep the focus on allowing us the player base to decide what we want our Guilds to be, keep them focused on allowing them to be defined by us the player base (their customer).

I stand behind my previous statement about Turbine taking a step in the right direction. I'm still waiting for the next step, be it the removal of decay, changing decay to be based off a guilds monthly average attendance or something else.
/signed

[McFlay]

Perhaps it's the belief that there should be some reward for coordinating larger groups of people, or that it is more difficult to keep larger groups on-task.

This is my issue with how the current guild system is being run. The vast majority of the games content is 6 man content. Raids are 12 man content. Why push a system where larger guilds have such massive advantages when the games content cant even support large groups.

A guild of 8 active players with similar play schedules already has a thick enough roster that they can form a solid base for any raid and easily fill in with non-guilded friends or pugs. Is it really a well thought out system to tell those 8 guys to enjoy dealing with decay, or go join a 300 person guild if you don't want to deal with it?

I'm not advocating for screwing any guild of a certain size, or preferential treatment for any guild of a certain size, but if my share of decay for being in a small guild amounts to 20x that what it would be if I just said screw it and hopped in a large guild, that is one flawed, broken system.

[slarden]

Why do you insist on continuing to use these ridiculous hyperbolic numbers?

Here's another example that might shed some light on the subject, assuming you're willing to engage in actual thought:

A guild of 6 receives 4000 renown per legendary victory, a guild of 10 receives 3400 renown per legendary victory, neither of these was affected by the change...

The guild of 10 only needs 70% of the renown per person that the guild of 6 needs per level.
But! They need 17.5% more total renown drops.
So here's the question: Why do you think each person in a smaller guild should have to work harder than a larger guild, but a larger guild should have to work harder in total than a smaller guild?

Might it have something to do with the fact that a guild of 4 and a guild of 10 get the same size bonus, but the guild of 10 has 2.5 times as many people to collect renown, yet both were unaffected by the change to decay?

Since they deny trying to encourage any particular guild size, either they're lying, or there's something being taken into account here that isn't reflected in the basic math. Perhaps it's the belief that there should be some reward for coordinating larger groups of people, or that it is more difficult to keep larger groups on-task. Or, possibly, it's a recognition that community is what keeps people playing MMOs, so while they aren't out to encourage any particular guild size, it is in their own interest to encourage people to form those communities.

They are not ridiculous numbers to anyone that does the math - the guild bonus simply decreases the disadvantage, they do not give an advantage. If there is an issue with the math go ahead and correct it. People are pushing that the guild bonus is unfair and that it should be taken away. Those of us in small guilds have a right to point out the obvious flaw in that argument. If you have an issue with the math - feel free to show some math.

I have no issue with the leveling aspect - that is fine. However, when you penalize players in a small guild 10x more than a player in a large guild after the guild bonus is factored in - there is a serious flaw in the system.

I think there are two issues here: the leveling component at the penalty component. Nobody is complaining about the leveling component - a few people from large guilds just keep throwing that out to distract from the topic at hand which is decay.

If they wish to encourage people to form communities they absolutely need to invite small guilds to the party. Small groups use channels, lfms, setup raids, engage in group chat and communicate with people from all guilds. There is no reason that a person in a small guild should be penalized with 10x more decay after the small guild bonus is factored in. What is your purpose of try and keep imposing this distorted penalty on small guilds?

I think it is reasonable for the people that are disadvantaged to raise the issue. Around 100 people from small guilds commented on this thread and the other 2 renown thread in the general discussion area.

When large guilds were trying to get help with decay many peopel from small guilds signed and advocated for the issue. These same people from large guilds are now fighting against giving small guilds the same type of decay that large guilds received. What purpose does that achieve?

I am very happy that large guilds were helped out by thei process and no desire to remove any benefits those guilds received. However, when guilds are receiving 90% more reduction in decay while other guilds get no reduction and in fact have to incur an increased ransack penalty on top of that - they have every right ot raise the issue and keep it alive.

[theslimshady]

I have no issue with the leveling aspect - that is fine. However, when you penalize players in a small guild 10x more than a player in a large guild after the guild bonus is factored in - there is a serious flaw in the system.



I think it is reasonable for the people that are disadvantaged to raise the issue. Around 100 people from small guilds commented on this thread and the other 2 renown thread in the general discussion area.

When large guilds were trying to get help with decay many peopel from small guilds signed and advocated for the issue. These same people from large guilds are now fighting against giving small guilds the same type of decay that large guilds received. What purpose does that achieve?

I am very happy that large guilds were helped out by thei process and no desire to remove any benefits those guilds received. However, when guilds are receiving 90% more reduction in decay while other guilds get no reduction and in fact have to incur an increased ransack penalty on top of that - they have every right ot raise the issue and keep it alive. lets make this a drinking game for everytime he said something like this in the 3 different threads you have to drink

[theslimshady]

What is the purpose of the continued attacks. All that guilds of 10 and less are asking for is the same decay break other guilds received. You act like we are attacking you for asking for something all other guilds already received. Do you realize you how ridiculous that is?

it was a joke alot of us are tring to go from locked sides of a argument to finding some common ground as well as tring to lighten the mood sorry that you thought my joke was in anyway about guild size it was a joke on saying the same thing over and over and over

[Artos_Fabril]

They are not ridiculous numbers to anyone that does the math
They are ridiculous numbers. There are exactly zero guilds with 200 players who are actually active. There are a few guilds with 200 "active" players, but of those less than half are likely to log in in any given week, and less than a 5th on a daily basis.

Furthermore, you started with this 200 vs 4 ****, were called on how ridiculous it is, amended it to 100 vs 6, which is still unheard of, and have since crept back to the original assumption of 200 constantly active players. Here's the problem: If there was a guild with 200 players who were all active on a daily basis, they would already be level 100 and would only drop from max renown between the time when decay was calculated and whenever their peak hours began. So cut the hyperbole. The number are right, but the assumptions are deeply flawed.


- the guild bonus simply decreases the disadvantage, they do not give an advantage. If there is an issue with the math go ahead and correct it. People are pushing that the guild bonus is unfair and that it should be taken away. Those of us in small guilds have a right to point out the obvious flaw in that argument. If you have an issue with the math - feel free to show some math.

I have no issue with the leveling aspect - that is fine. However, when you penalize players in a small guild 10x more than a player in a large guild after the guild bonus is factored in - there is a serious flaw in the system.
First off, leveling and decay are just different sides of the same coin. They're both a factor of renown earned, You completely ignored the point that a guild of 10 has 40% of the decay per person as a guild of 4, and both were unaffected by the change. If there's an iniquity in the system, it existed before the change to renown and is totally unaffected by it. If it is there for a reason, figuring out the reason is imperative to finding an equitable solution.


I think there are two issues here: the leveling component at the penalty component. Nobody is complaining about the leveling component - a few people from large guilds just keep throwing that out to distract from the topic at hand which is decay.It all boils down to renown earned. Total renown is reduced by decay, but the amount of renown earned is unaffected. So if you don't have a problem with needing 17% more renown in total, or 30% less per person, in a guild of 10 than a guild of 6, or why a guild of 10 gets the same bonus as a guild of 4, but needs 60% less renown per person, either to level or to beat decay, then why should you have a problem that a guild of 100, or even 1000, needs less renown per person to beat decay?


If they wish to encourage people to form communities they absolutely need to invite small guilds to the party. Small groups use channels, lfms, setup raids, engage in group chat and communicate with people from all guilds. There is no reason that a person in a small guild should be penalized with 10x more decay after the small guild bonus is factored in. What is your purpose of try and keep imposing this distorted penalty on small guilds?Maybe you should go back and read some of my previous posts in this thread. I've offered up other (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=4794782#post4794782) possible (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=4777629#post4777629) decay mechanics and thrown my support behind eliminating it completely. This isn't about keeping you down, it's about understanding the system and trying to balance it, rather than just whining about it.

A person in a guild of 1 has the same bonus as a person in a guild of 16, but has to deal with 16 times as much decay! Why do you think that might be? Is it "unjust"? Does it hurt the community?


I think it is reasonable for the people that are disadvantaged to raise the issue. Around 100 people from small guilds commented on this thread and the other 2 renown thread in the general discussion area.

When large guilds were trying to get help with decay many peopel from small guilds signed and advocated for the issue. These same people from large guilds are now fighting against giving small guilds the same type of decay that large guilds received. What purpose does that achieve?
I also think it is reasonable for people who are genuinely disadvantaged to raise an issue, and I think it's reasonable for people who can see through rhetoric which only cites facts that support its cause to call BS.

[Chaos000]

People are pushing that the guild bonus is unfair and that it should be taken away.

The guild bonuses under the old system enabled smaller sized guild with a high percentage of active members to be able to advance to max level while it remained out of reach for larger sized guilds with as many or in some cases a higher number of equally active members. Due to decay being factored per player, the individual accomplishment of renown gain for a single player -- in a guild of ANY size -- was diminished for each additional player that could not maintain the same level of activity.

Players did not have the mechanism to reduce decay in order to advance so it became mandatory to "trim the fat" or start a new group that required a certain level of activity. (I still feel that the idea to tie in renown decay or bonus to ship size is a fantastic idea because it would allow for more choice)

"decay per player" and "size bonus" is divisive as it gives the measure of when a guild is better off without certain members. Decay per guild level was a good move as it removed the penalty of retaining or adding an additional player irregardless of their level of activity. Guild size bonuses continues to perpetuate an opportunity cost for small guilds. Adding an additional player because if their level of activity does not make up for the bonuses being lost it then it is only "worth it" if a player meets a certain criteria in terms of renown gain.

Therefore, just telling a small guild to "go out and recruit" doesn't help the situation in the current system. Eliminating the size bonus and sharply reducing the decay to near insignificant amounts as compensation is an idea worth considering. (To prevent abuse i.e. kicking all members after achieving a certain level, my solution to this issue is any player that drank a guild renown potion will take all their renown with them if they happen to be kicked. paranoid players will begin to start buying guild renown potions from the store as insurance) Guilds should never be penalized for their association with additional players nor should they have to struggle to maintain their level when under a certain size.

[slarden]

The guild bonuses under the old system enabled smaller sized guild with a high percentage of active members to be able to advance to max level while it remained out of reach for larger sized guilds with as many or in some cases a higher number of equally active members. Due to decay being factored per player, the individual accomplishment of renown gain for a single player -- in a guild of ANY size -- was diminished for each additional player that could not maintain the same level of activity.

Players did not have the mechanism to reduce decay in order to advance so it became mandatory to "trim the fat" or start a new group that required a certain level of activity. (I still feel that the idea to tie in renown decay or bonus to ship size is a fantastic idea because it would allow for more choice)

"decay per player" and "size bonus" is divisive as it gives the measure of when a guild is better off without certain members. Decay per guild level was a good move as it removed the penalty of retaining or adding an additional player irregardless of their level of activity. Guild size bonuses continues to perpetuate an opportunity cost for small guilds. Adding an additional player because if their level of activity does not make up for the bonuses being lost it then it is only "worth it" if a player meets a certain criteria in terms of renown gain.

Therefore, just telling a small guild to "go out and recruit" doesn't help the situation in the current system. Eliminating the size bonus and sharply reducing the decay to near insignificant amounts as compensation is an idea worth considering. (To prevent abuse i.e. kicking all members after achieving a certain level, my solution to this issue is any player that drank a guild renown potion will take all their renown with them if they happen to be kicked. paranoid players will begin to start buying guild renown potions from the store as insurance) Guilds should never be penalized for their association with additional players nor should they have to struggle to maintain their level when under a certain size.

Asking small guilds to recruit doesn't work for a totally different reason. Small guilds are small by choice - not because of some crazy theory that small guild bonus is keeping us from recruiting. If you do the math adding a member will always be beneficial unless the person does next to nothing. This is not due to the guild bonus, it is due to DECAY. You see those of us in guilds of 10 or less are under the OLD system that everyone wanted to get out of. Those of us in small guilds still want out of that system to have a lower amount of decay like all other guilds.

As someone actually in a small guild I can tell you your theory makes no sense. We add people when it's natural. some people go inactive for long periods of time and then some come back. So optimizing guild size isn't really an option since you never know when someone might leave or an inactive person might become active and increase the # of members.

I am not sure why you can't understand that most small guilds don't think growing and recruiting is necessary or good unless it just happens in the natural course of playing and grouping. We don't want to be forced to be a big guild. It's a bad thing and a bad idea to make all guilds struggle with massive decay unless they get bigger.

[slarden]

They are ridiculous numbers. There are exactly zero guilds with 200 players who are actually active. There are a few guilds with 200 "active" players, but of those less than half are likely to log in in any given week, and less than a 5th on a daily basis.

Furthermore, you started with this 200 vs 4 ****, were called on how ridiculous it is, amended it to 100 vs 6, which is still unheard of, and have since crept back to the original assumption of 200 constantly active players. Here's the problem: If there was a guild with 200 players who were all active on a daily basis, they would already be level 100 and would only drop from max renown between the time when decay was calculated and whenever their peak hours began. So cut the hyperbole. The number are right, but the assumptions are deeply flawed.


First off, leveling and decay are just different sides of the same coin. They're both a factor of renown earned, You completely ignored the point that a guild of 10 has 40% of the decay per person as a guild of 4, and both were unaffected by the change. If there's an iniquity in the system, it existed before the change to renown and is totally unaffected by it. If it is there for a reason, figuring out the reason is imperative to finding an equitable solution.

It all boils down to renown earned. Total renown is reduced by decay, but the amount of renown earned is unaffected. So if you don't have a problem with needing 17% more renown in total, or 30% less per person, in a guild of 10 than a guild of 6, or why a guild of 10 gets the same bonus as a guild of 4, but needs 60% less renown per person, either to level or to beat decay, then why should you have a problem that a guild of 100, or even 1000, needs less renown per person to beat decay?

Maybe you should go back and read some of my previous posts in this thread. I've offered up other (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=4794782#post4794782) possible (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=4777629#post4777629) decay mechanics and thrown my support behind eliminating it completely. This isn't about keeping you down, it's about understanding the system and trying to balance it, rather than just whining about it.

A person in a guild of 1 has the same bonus as a person in a guild of 16, but has to deal with 16 times as much decay! Why do you think that might be? Is it "unjust"? Does it hurt the community?


I also think it is reasonable for people who are genuinely disadvantaged to raise an issue, and I think it's reasonable for people who can see through rhetoric which only cites facts that support its cause to call BS.

It is perfectly reasonable to compare a guild of 4 to 200 to determine fairness - in fact it should be done. There are guilds on Sarlona much bigger than 200 accounts. 200 is not a ficticious number - not even close to being unreasonable. I never thought comparing 4 to 200 was ridiculous, I simply compared 6 to 100 to show that it still proved the case. And it does - the math is so crystal clear and yet some people choose to argue rhetoric instead of deal in facts.

Here is the problem with your assumptions. Small guilds also have people that only log in from time to time and don't play much. And it is not the exception

I have offered many alternatives including the elimination of decay. This is not rhetoric. Like the roughly 100 other small guilds that commented about this system, I see the obvious inequity in the system and believe it should be addressed. If you don't like an idea you will call "rhetoric" plain and simple. It's alot easier to just attack and argue when the facts are not on your side. This is why I like to use #s, it really shows the problem.

And no renown and decay are not the same thing. Decay is a penalty and it is not fair that a member of one guild receives decay 10x higher than someone in another guild after guild bonus is factored in. Decay is ultimately a penalty on the players of the guild.

[Artos_Fabril]

And no renown and decay are not the same thing. Decay is a penalty and it is not fair that a member of one guild receives decay 10x higher than someone in another guild after guild bonus is factored in. Decay is ultimately a penalty on the players of the guild.
So if you think it is totally unfair that a member of a 1 person guild has to deal with 16 times the decay per person as a member of a 16 person guild, why do you think the system is designed that way, and what is your actual proposal to address it?

Would it be more fair if the member of the 1 person guild earned 16 times the renown per renown pull as a member of a 16 person guild?

All your hyperbolic numbers do is detract from your argument. Certainly there are guilds with 200 "active" players. But if you can find 1 200 player guild where every member has logged in within the past 24 hours, I will find you 200 guilds with 10 or fewer players where every member has logged in within the past 24 hours.

[Tshober]

I'm not advocating for screwing any guild of a certain size, or preferential treatment for any guild of a certain size, but if my share of decay for being in a small guild amounts to 20x that what it would be if I just said screw it and hopped in a large guild, that is one flawed, broken system.

Then let's advocate for eliminateing decay entirely. Then your share of decay will be zero, just like mine, and everyone else's. What could be more fair?

[slarden]

So if you think it is totally unfair that a member of a 1 person guild has to deal with 16 times the decay per person as a member of a 16 person guild, why do you think the system is designed that way, and what is your actual proposal to address it?

Would it be more fair if the member of the 1 person guild earned 16 times the renown per renown pull as a member of a 16 person guild?

All your hyperbolic numbers do is detract from your argument. Certainly there are guilds with 200 "active" players. But if you can find 1 200 player guild where every member has logged in within the past 24 hours, I will find you 200 guilds with 10 or fewer players where every member has logged in within the past 24 hours.

That is your argument not mine. I never argued that guild bonus should be an equalizer. It is not that now and never has been. Nobody is asking what you are suggesting so I have no idea why you are trying to fight about it. You can debate that with yourself.

A few people continue to pretend that small guilds are wanting to change leveling. Nobody is asking to change that I am aware of. We are at a significant disadvantage for leveling and accept it. That makes sense because it may take longer to level, but it doesn't prevent us from leveling. The penalty aspect does not make sense.

I would like to see decay eliminated entirely. I continue to be focused solely on the penalty aspect of the system because that is where the problem is right now. The leveling aspect is working just fine the way it is. It was well thought out.

[Dandonk]

I would like to see decay eliminated entirely. I continue to be focused solely on the penalty aspect of the system because that is where the problem is right now. The leveling aspect is working just fine the way it is. It was well thought out.

This.

Since decay was effectively removed as a consideration for large guilds, it's obviously not something Turbine considers important to the system anymore. So why not just remove it for all guilds, then?

[theslimshady]

This.

Since decay was effectively removed as a consideration for large guilds, it's obviously not something Turbine considers important to the system anymore. So why not just remove it for all guilds, then?

because then we would be in the same boat as what you are complaining about
the guild bonuses from small and meduim guilds would be showing favoritism by making it where there pulls where higher then all the large guilds players
so to end decay means in fairness we would also have to end the bonuses thats why i suggested turning decay off for 10 or under members and once you broke 10 members there was no going back

[Dandonk]

because then we would be in the same boat as what you are complaining about
the guild bonuses from small and meduim guilds would be showing favoritism by making it where there pulls where higher then all the large guilds players
so to end decay means in fairness we would also have to end the bonuses thats why i suggested turning decay off for 10 or under members and once you broke 10 members there was no going back

Favoritism? How? A 100 account guild would still level up much faster than small guilds.

Turning decay off for only sub-10 account guilds would limit people's willingness to recruit, which I doubt Turbine wants to do.

[theslimshady]

Favoritism? How? A 100 account guild would still level up much faster than small guilds.

Turning decay off for only sub-10 account guilds would limit people's willingness to recruit, which I doubt Turbine wants to do.

because if i pull 50 and you pull 50 with no decay why should you get more what makes small and meduim guilds more special that each peice of renown would be worth more if there is no decay to fight -------

[Dandonk]

because if i pull 50 and you pull 50 with no decay why should you get more what makes small and meduim guilds more special that each peice of renown would be worth more if there is no decay to fight -------

To encourage guild diversity, which was part of the original goals of the system?

And why is this an issue for you? I thought I wasn't allowed to feel things were unfair since it didn't make me worse off in absolute terms. Why is that OK for you now, then? /confused

[theslimshady]

Turning decay off for only sub-10 account guilds would limit people's willingness to recruit, which I doubt Turbine wants to do. huh that was the whole point they was debating they didnt want to recruit and had no plans too because they liked only the small guild feel or something and had cas members that decay was becoming a burden

[theslimshady]

I thought I wasn't allowed to feel things were unfair since it didn't make me worse off in absolute terms thank you for honestly answering what damage the new system is doing to your own guild this is what the majority of the people are saying about the new system

[Dandonk]

huh that was the whole point they was debating they didnt want to recruit and had no plans too because they liked only the small guild feel or something and had cas members that decay was becoming a burden

Some won't, some will. Taking away the choice, or at least severely hindering it, is not something I think Turbine will want to do.


thank you for honestly answering what damage the new system is doing to your own guild this is what the majority of the people are saying about the new system

Apart from the fact the the new ransack does hit small guilds with more penalties than before (though how much is difficult to say), you're welcome. I don't think I ever said otherwise, but if so, I apologize.

But how about replying to the rest of the post? Taking things out of context is always fun, of course, but why not comment on the entire paragraph?

[theslimshady]

But how about replying to the rest of the post? Taking things out of context is always fun, of course, but why not comment on the entire paragraph?

huh what didnt i answer ? feelings ? i dont understand

[Dandonk]

huh what didnt i answer ? feelings ? i dont understand

And why is this an issue for you? I thought I wasn't allowed to feel things were unfair since it didn't make me worse off in absolute terms. Why is that OK for you now, then? /confused

[Gremmlynn]

Well many of the casual players that were booted from large guilds ended up in small guilds. Now they are getting punished once again by getting 10x more decay than a person in the guild that booted them.

If we want to encourage casual players we would give a fair decay reduction to all guilds not just large guilds. It is achievable to help casual players in all guilds while solving the "booting" problem permanently.

Eliminate decay or reduce decay ratably for all guilds. Impose a 100% penalty on a guild that boots a character that has been active within the last 90 days. If a character is booted, the guild gains nothing and loses nothing for the time the person was in the guild. The booted player doesn't leave 75% of the renown in a guild that booted him. This will eliminate all gaming of the system and should be implemented ASAP.I agree with eliminating decay, but reducing decay leaves us with the same problem with just a lesser scale (basically, whatever degree you feel it should be reduced by may still seem onerous to another who's guild plays even less). I also agree with the 100% boot cost. If they are not good enough to play with you, for whatever reason, you don't deserve any of their renown. That simply helps keep everyone accountable for their actions.

But that has nothing really to do with the rather narrow issue the devs were trying to deal with. Which was guilds kicking players to better game their system.

[theslimshady]

And why is this an issue for you? I thought I wasn't allowed to feel things were unfair since it didn't make me worse off in absolute terms. Why is that OK for you now, then? /confused this makes no sense i am currently not worse off and neither are you we already came to that conclusion
we are talking about ideas based on fairness and the main topic was that small guilds under 10 members have to work 10x as hard to combat decay and renown gains then a guild with 100 members
so it was suggested that decay be done away with {which i am totally for } but i was pointing out that if decay was done away with why would guild bonues still apply
my question was why a player in a small and meduim guilds under a no decay system still deserved to get bonuses on renown drops ? and what made them players because there guilds was number restricted special ?

[Dandonk]

this makes no sense i am currently not worse off and neither are you we already came to that conclusion

Decay no, ransack yes.


we are talking about ideas based on fairness and the main topic was that small guilds under 10 members have to work 10x as hard to combat decay and renown gains then a guild with 100 members
so it was suggested that decay be done away with {which i am totally for } but i was pointing out that if decay was done away with why would guild bonues still apply
my question was why a player in a small and meduim guilds under a no decay system still deserved to get bonuses on renown drops ? and what made them players because there guilds was number restricted special ?

But since by removing decay entirely and leaving small guild bonus you would not be worse off in large guilds, in absolute terms, why complain that it would be unfair? I thought we weren't allowed to do that?

[Dandonk]

I agree with eliminating decay, but reducing decay leaves us with the same problem with just a lesser scale (basically, whatever degree you feel it should be reduced by may still seem onerous to another who's guild plays even less). I also agree with the 100% boot cost. If they are not good enough to play with you, for whatever reason, you don't deserve any of their renown. That simply helps keep everyone accountable for their actions.

But that has nothing really to do with the rather narrow issue the devs were trying to deal with. Which was guilds kicking players to better game their system.

While in theory 100% kick cost sounds OK, it can have bad consequences. If decay is kept, we may at some point end up with players having more personal renown than the guild itself has. Thus kicking one could, in theory, take your guild from level 100 to level 1.
While this is likely not the case yet, it will get there sometime, and I think that part would need to be addressed before we get there.

[theslimshady]

Decay no, ransack yes. i have seen no data on this at all as matters of fact 0 none of my many friends in many of small guilds seem to have see any decrease in one level gain at all



But since by removing decay entirely and leaving small guild bonus you would not be worse off in large guilds, in absolute terms, why complain that it would be unfair? I thought we weren't allowed to do that?
thats right i wouldnt

i was just tring to clarify what you was asking for , and for you to be happy it is no decay at all and all guild bonuses to stay and the large guilds to be quiet so you can try and get it

so in the spirit of your argument i would like to have no decay and a very large guild bonus added because this wouldnt effect you or your guild
lets say we should get the number of every active that logs on every 30 days in my case that would be a 200 percent increase to renown

[Dandonk]

because if i pull 50 and you pull 50 with no decay why should you get more what makes small and meduim guilds more special that each peice of renown would be worth more if there is no decay to fight -------

Well, I thought you meant that.


thats right i wouldnt

But now I'm confused.


i was just tring to clarify what you was asking for , and for you to be happy it is no decay at all and all guild bonuses to stay and the large guilds to be quiet so you can try and get it

I am trying to get a fair system, for large and small guilds alike. How to get that, I'm not entirely sure. But it would certainly include some kind of equalizing factor to make up for the huge bonus large guilds have atm.


so in the spirit of your argument i would like to have no decay and a very large guild bonus added because this wouldnt effect you or your guild
lets say we should get the number of every active that logs on every 30 days in my case that would be a 200 percent increase to renown

By the tone of your post I gather you don't think this is a fair proposal. So I think we have come to the clonclusion that relative values ARE important, not just absolute ones. Thank you for recognizing this.

[Gremmlynn]

Favoritism? How? A 100 account guild would still level up much faster than small guilds.

Turning decay off for only sub-10 account guilds would limit people's willingness to recruit, which I doubt Turbine wants to do.That is assuming a similar level of activity. If ten of those 100 players account for half the renown gained, it would be better to boot the other 90 and use the bonus to come out ahead.

[Dandonk]

That is assuming a similar level of activity. If ten of those 100 players account for half the renown gained, it would be better to boot the other 90 and use the bonus to come out ahead.

Hmm, that is a good point. Though I doubt kickings would be as common as they seemingly have been, since decay would not be a problem, this could happen. Some finetuning is obviously needed.

[Gremmlynn]

While in theory 100% kick cost sounds OK, it can have bad consequences. If decay is kept, we may at some point end up with players having more personal renown than the guild itself has. Thus kicking one could, in theory, take your guild from level 100 to level 1.
While this is likely not the case yet, it will get there sometime, and I think that part would need to be addressed before we get there.This has always been one of the systems problems. Be it from removing players or players quitting the guild even under good terms. It simply wasn't implemented well to begin with.

[theslimshady]

Well, I thought you meant that.



But now I'm confused.



I am trying to get a fair system, for large and small guilds alike. How to get that, I'm not entirely sure. But it would certainly include some kind of equalizing factor to make up for the huge bonus large guilds have atm.



By the tone of your post I gather you don't think this is a fair proposal. So I think we have come to the clonclusion that relative values ARE important, not just absolute ones. Thank you for recognizing this.

no i am saying that the current system was a great leap in the right direction and that this thread turned into a large guild small guild battle
which to me it is not we are all tring to get a system in place so all of our guilds can thrive and prosper
i would like a no decay system and i really dont care about small guilds getting bonuses or how slow or fast they level
i just really beleave that some not all of the small guild leaders have tried to make this new system way worse then it is
i think almost all guilds are progressing forward currently
and i think all that play this game should not be subjected to this unneeded stress
if i had a choice between the current system or the old system or a no decay system i would choose no decay but this thread was about old system to the new system and the new system is far better then the old system
i think the reason so many including myself in large guilds are so adament in this debate is because we felt that the small guilds where jeaprodizing the new system based on large guilds getting a break when they was not affected with any change to there decay
however after reveiwing alot of this thread i can see now that the case is small guilds would like there daily hurdles dealing with decay adjusted which as a guild leader i can understand and as long as we dont go back to the ole busted system of decay walls and decreasing levels i am really happy

[Dandonk]

no i am saying that the current system was a great leap in the right direction and that this thread turned into a large guild small guild battle
which to me it is not we are all tring to get a system in place so all of our guilds can thrive and prosper
i would like a no decay system and i really dont care about small guilds getting bonuses or how slow or fast they level
i just really beleave that some not all of the small guild leaders have tried to make this new system way worse then it is
i think almost all guilds are progressing forward currently
and i think all that play this game should not be subjected to this unneeded stress
if i had a choice between the current system or the old system or a no decay system i would choose no decay but this thread was about old system to the new system and the new system is far better then the old system
i think the reason so many including myself in large guilds are so adament in this debate is because we felt that the small guilds where jeaprodizing the new system based on large guilds getting a break when they was not affected with any change to there decay
however after reveiwing alot of this thread i can see now that the case is small guilds would like there daily hurdles dealing with decay adjusted which as a guild leader i can understand and as long as we dont go back to the ole busted system of decay walls and decreasing levels i am really happy

Small guilds also hit walls, whether you believe it or not. Well, many do at least, and my own guild among them.

I do not believe the new system is fair, since it only addresses part of the issue, and gives huge bonuses to one kind of guild over another. Therefore I argue that small guild should get some kind of extra bonus to keep them on the same footing with regards to large guilds as they were before.

I think that since Turbine has already decided that decay is not important for one type of guild, it should take the full step and just remove it.
But I do see the issues that have been raised in this thread with that solution, so any ideas on how to make it work better are very welcome.

[Gremmlynn]

Small guilds also hit walls, whether you believe it or not. Well, many do at least, and my own guild among them.

I do not believe the new system is fair, since it only addresses part of the issue, and gives huge bonuses to one kind of guild over another. Therefore I argue that small guild should get some kind of extra bonus to keep them on the same footing with regards to large guilds as they were before.

I think that since Turbine has already decided that decay is not important for one type of guild, it should take the full step and just remove it.
But I do see the issues that have been raised in this thread with that solution, so any ideas on how to make it work better are very welcome.It only addresses that part of the issue indirectly. I doubt the devs were looking for a way to make large guilds have it easier. That was simply a side effect to a somewhat flawed change to make it so guilds don't find it more advantages to simply not include some players. Somewhat flawed because the size bonuses still can have that effect.

[Dandonk]

It only addresses that part of the issue indirectly. I doubt the devs were looking for a way to make large guilds have it easier. That was simply a side effect to a somewhat flawed change to make it so guilds don't find it more advantages to simply not include some players. Somewhat flawed because the size bonuses still can have that effect.

So we can totally discount the original statement that guilds of all sizes should be playable, and the more recent statement that any suggestions should be "fair"?

I'm more and more afraid you're right, but I think that's sad.

[Gremmlynn]

So we can totally discount the original statement that guilds of all sizes should be playable, and the more recent statement that any suggestions should be "fair"?

I'm more and more afraid you're right, but I think that's sad.Before they introduced the whole level system, guilds of all sizes were playable.

It was when they tried to introduce a one size fits all system to the many different things people believed guilds represent that "fairness" went out the window.

[Dandonk]

Before they introduced the whole level system, guilds of all sizes were playable.

It was when they tried to introduce a one size fits all system to the many different things people believed guilds represent that "fairness" went out the window.

They commented when the level system was launched that it was supposed to be for all sizes of guilds.

"Fairness" was spoken of by a dev in this very thread, so I'm still hoping to hear from him/her what the fair part is about the current system. But it seems I'm on their ignore list now... oh, well.

[Gremmlynn]

They commented when the level system was launched that it was supposed to be for all sizes of guilds.

"Fairness" was spoken of by a dev in this very thread, so I'm still hoping to hear from him/her what the fair part is about the current system. But it seems I'm on their ignore list now... oh, well.The problem is that "all sizes of guilds" in no way is the same as "all types of guilds". So trying to be fair to small casual guilds could be over the top for small hard core guilds and also limit the opportunities to even find a guild for casual players that didn't come to the game with others.

[Dandonk]

The problem is that "all sizes of guilds" in no way is the same as "all types of guilds". So trying to be fair to small casual guilds could be over the top for small hard core guilds and also limit the opportunities to even find a guild for casual players that didn't come to the game with others.

This is true.

But I'm not sure why the majority of the small guilds should pay for the minority that are hardcore.

And I'm not sure why it's OK for large hardcore guilds to get a huge bonus, while it isn't for small ones.

[slarden]

Let's just clear up some myths. There is a myth that small guild bonus gives an unfair leveling advantage. There is another myth that small guilds don't want to add members because it hurts small guilds to do so.

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a519/slarden/guildbonus.jpg

This shows just how untrue that is. The math was designed in such a way that adding a person was always favorable. Adding 1 person for a 6 person guild is the equivalent of adding nearly 3 people even with the reduction in bonus. The system was designed this way intentionally. The reason there are a large number of guilds with 6 isn't because guilds want to get smaller, it is because the guilds below 6 want to get bigger to get 6. Any guild with less than 6 already has a big disadvantage and as many pointed out getting to 6 helps the members earn more even if some of the accounts are bank accounts.

This not unlike many of the free to play folks I know that have multiple accounts to get around the 2 character limit. This is in fact one of things that was hurting large guilds under the old system. 1 person earning renown but getting decay for 6 because they had 6 accounts in the guild.

Here is the reason for small guild bonus. Level is tied to rewards and DDO didn't want to exclude a large percentage of the customer base that prefers small guilds:

Paiz: "That’s definitely something that we’re still trying to figure out and balance. There is some help for smaller guilds in this system… we don’t want to exclude a guild that might only include four people. We think that’s a totally valid way to play, and we’re trying not to force people to have 50 player guilds. If you’re in a small guild, you’ll get a small boost every time you pick up, what I call, a “renown token” because we want to make sure those guilds are able to get their airships and things like that. "

The new system clearly isn't consistent with this vision as many from guilds of all sizes have pointed out. So we would like Turbine to explain if they are changing this vision and why. Many of us have spent years leveling our small guilds - always taking renown as an end reward, taking guild elxirs and playing by the rules. With the new system guilds with the same average activity level as us will get to get bigger airship and more amenities. We will not for only one reason - the high decay that is only a significant factor for small guilds. Although guilds of 10 and less are impacted the most, even most guilds in the 11-30 range will hit a ceiling at some point and be unable to advance. They are currently moving, but as they approach the new ceiling their prrogress will slow.

As for the small guilds on the leader boards some are trying to slow down - what is the point? They are at such a high level because they play so much and they typically go through quests and raids very fast. There is no point to punish over 99% of the small guilds because some are successful. I am happy and impressed with those guilds. Even when the large guilds get to 100 it doesn't take away the fact that those guilds were so good they could get to 100 with such high decay. That is not the case with other small guilds.

[Gremmlynn]

This is true.

But I'm not sure why the majority of the small guilds should pay for the minority that are hardcore.

And I'm not sure why it's OK for large hardcore guilds to get a huge bonus, while it isn't for small ones.Mostly because there is really no such thing as a large hard core guild. It's just counter to their nature, as in large groups of peers they aren't standing out as achievers. So they stick to smaller teams or, especially amongst the less proficient, surround them selves with "lesser" players in order to stand out.

[slarden]

The problem is that "all sizes of guilds" in no way is the same as "all types of guilds". So trying to be fair to small casual guilds could be over the top for small hard core guilds and also limit the opportunities to even find a guild for casual players that didn't come to the game with others.

Removing decay will not limit opportunities for people to join guilds. There is no reason why a guild would take a casual player with decay and not take a player without decay. If you take a player without decay you always adding more net renown.

Removing decay is ultimately the right answer if we want to help out casual players and give them a choice of guild size - or even starting their own guild without getting discouraged by decay.

[Dandonk]

Mostly because there is really no such thing as a large hard core guild. It's just counter to their nature, as in large groups of peers they aren't standing out as achievers. So they stick to smaller teams or, especially amongst the less proficient, surround them selves with "lesser" players in order to stand out.

I find it hard to believe that there's no 30-person hardcore guilds (who get a 50% reduction in renown), but even if you are right - why should the vast majority of small guilds pay for a few hardcore guilds who likely are level 100 or close anyway?

[Gremmlynn]

Let's just clear up some myths. There is a myth that small guild bonus gives an unfair leveling advantage. There is another myth that small guilds don't want to add members because it hurts small guilds to do so.

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a519/slarden/guildbonus.jpg

This shows just how untrue that is. The math was designed in such a way that adding a person was always favorable. Adding 1 person for a 6 person guild is the equivalent of adding nearly 3 people even with the reduction in bonus. The sytem was designed this way intentionally. The reason there are a large number of guilds with 6 isn't because guilds want to get smaller, it is because the guilds below 6 want to get bigger to get 6. Any guild with less than 6 already has a big disadvantage and as many pointed out getting to 6 helps the members earn more even if some of the accounts are bank accounts.

This not unlike many of the free to play folks I know that have multiple accounts to get around the 2 character limit. This is in fact one of things that was hurting large guilds under the old system. 1 person earning renown but getting decay for 6 because they had 6 accounts in the guild.

Here is the reason for small guild bonus. Level is tied to rewards and DDO didn't want to exclude a large percentage of the customer base that prefers small guilds:

Paiz: "That’s definitely something that we’re still trying to figure out and balance. There is some help for smaller guilds in this system… we don’t want to exclude a guild that might only include four people. We think that’s a totally valid way to play, and we’re trying not to force people to have 50 player guilds. If you’re in a small guild, you’ll get a small boost every time you pick up, what I call, a “renown token” because we want to make sure those guilds are able to get their airships and things like that. "

The new system clearly isn't consistent with this vision as many from guilds of all sizes have pointed out. So we would like Turbine to explain if they are changing this vision and why. Many of us have spent years leveling our small guilds - always taking renown as an end reward, taking guild elxirs and playing by the rules. With the new system guilds with the same average activity level as us will get to get bigger airship and more amenities. We will not for only one reason - the high decay that is only a significant factor for small guilds. Although guilds of 10 and less are impacted the most, even most guilds in the 11-30 range will hit a ceiling at some point and be unable to advance. They are currently moving, but as they approach the new ceiling their prrogress will slow.

As for the small guilds on the leader boards are trying to slow down - what is the point? They at such a high level because they play so much. There is no point to punish over 99% of the small guilds because some are successful. I am happy and impressed with those guilds. Even when the large guilds get to 100 it doesn't take away the fact that those guilds were so good they could get to 100 with such high decay. That is not the case with other small guilds.This assumes similar levels of activity again. 6 people earning 50k renown each/week will always be better off not adding another who earns ~800 the one day they play each week. Because they gain more than 56 times that 800 from the better level multiplier on their 300k.

[slarden]

This assumes similar levels of activity again. 6 people earning 50k renown each/week will always be better off not adding another who earns ~800 the one day they play each week. Because they gain more than 56 times that 800 from the better level multiplier on their 300k.

As an officer in a guild I have no way of knowing how much renown someone will earn. When they are in the guild I don't know how much renown they earn. We typically promote people to officer once they've been in the guild for a few months anyhow.

We add people because we like the people, not to optimize rewown. We are generally adding people we've quested with or at least have some familiarity with. That is how most small guilds operate - we don't do blind invites. If a 6 person guild adds a person that is half as active as the rest of the guild we still gain more renown and I can show you the math to prove it. The risk of adding a person is low.

The more common issue guilds face is that a person that was previously very active has a change in their life and can't play as much. This is a reality for most that play the game. Ultimately the only reason it is an issue at all is because of decay. Decay prevents guilds from leveling. If guilds could still level there would be really no reason to worry about such things. Small guilds just want the save ability to move forward as large guilds without having to worry about these formulas and what activities we do or don't do. It's that simple.

[Gremmlynn]

I find it hard to believe that there's no 30-person hardcore guilds (who get a 50% reduction in renown), but even if you are right - why should the vast majority of small guilds pay for a few hardcore guilds who likely are level 100 or close anyway?30 isn't a large guild. Though it's probably pushing the limits for hard core achievers.

[Gremmlynn]

As an officer in a guild I have no way of knowing how much renown someone will earn. When they are in the guild I don't know how much renown they earn. We typically promote people to officer once they've been in the guild for a few months anyhow.

We add people because we like the people, not to optimize rewown. We are generally adding people we've quested with or at least have some familiarity with. That is how most small guilds operate - we don't do blind invites. If a 6 person guild adds a person that is half as active as the rest of the guild we still gain more renown and I can show you the math to prove it. The risk of adding a person is low.

The more common issue guilds face is that a person that was previously very active has a change in their life and can't play as much. This is a reality for most that play the game. Ultimately the only reason it is an issue at all is because of decay. Decay prevents guilds from leveling. If guilds could still level there would be really no reason to worry about such things. Small guilds just want the save ability to move forward as large guilds without having to worry about these formulas and what activities we do or don't do. It's that simple.That's what you do, not what everyone does. But you keep making statements about how something is always so, not how that isn't so for you. As for keeping track of how much renown one earns. If you play every day and see someone only plays one day a week for a couple hours. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out about how much renown they are even capable of earning in that time and whether that is even close to the 45kish you are giving up in bonus to keep them around.

[slarden]

That's what you do, not what everyone does. But you keep making statements about how something is always so, not how that isn't so for you. As for keeping track of how much renown one earns. If you play every day and see someone only plays one day a week for a couple hours. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out about how much renown they are even capable of earning in that time and whether that is even close to the 45kish you are giving up in bonus to keep them around.

If decay is removed and we have a 100% penalty for booting, there is absolutely no incentive to boot. Around 100 small guilds have commented in the decay threads. If anything what I learned is that many small guilds operate much the same way I do. I also have many friends in small guilds and again they operate much the same way our guild does.

It isn't until guilds stop leveling that they start to analyze such things. So why keep decay at all? Is letting all guilds advance without decay a problem worth solving? I don't think so.

As for keeping track of people, no I don't do that. I don't know why anyone would do that. People play at different times and just because they aren't on the few hours I play doesn't mean they aren't on at some other point in the day. If someone was so obsessed with this I think they should consider getting some help.

[Dandonk]

30 isn't a large guild. Though it's probably pushing the limits for hard core achievers.

And what about the rest of the post?

[eris2323]

I like how this conversation continues, even though a guild of 3 casual players can level a 72 guild, and a guild of 4 casual players are levelling a level 91 guild.

Right now.

But they want it even easier?

So, what, let me get this straight? The tiny guilds want it EVEN EASIER? Still? Even though a level 91 guild with 4 casual players is back to levelling and over their wall.

Just how much of an advantage do you want?

No dice.

[Gremmlynn]

And what about the rest of the post?You would have to ask Turbine about that.

[eris2323]

Coming up next in the DDO store! Solo guild levelling potions, 1500 tp.

One click, and your solo guild will be level 100.

Actually, this was in jest - but turbine, please do this, and put a little star next to the guild names that use these potions, so we know. Also lock those guilds to 10 players or less forever if they use the potion.

Just. to. stop. this. endless. repeating. argument.

suggest name of 'potion of i dont care if 4 people can level a level 91 guild, i want it even easier'

[Dandonk]

You would have to ask Turbine about that.

Indeed.

Well, Turbine, how about it, then?

[slarden]

You would have to ask Turbine about that.


Indeed.

Well, Turbine, how about it, then?

These are some really good points. It would be great to get some feedback from Turbine.

[Gremmlynn]

If decay is removed and we have a 100% penalty for booting, there is absolutely no incentive to boot. Around 100 small guilds have commented in the decay threads. If anything what I learned is that many small guilds operate much the same way I do. I also have many friends in small guilds and again they operate much the same way our guild does.

It isn't until guilds stop leveling that they start to analyze such things. So why keep decay at all? Is letting all guilds advance without decay a problem worth solving? I don't think so.

As for keeping track of people, no I don't do that. I don't know why anyone would do that. People play at different times and just because they aren't on the few hours I play doesn't mean they aren't on at some other point in the day. If someone was so obsessed with this I think they should consider getting some help.Less incentive, sure. But you can still have a case where a guild has a member that, for whatever reason, doesn't play enough to earn as much renown as a bigger bonus on the rest of the guilds renown would provide. Whether that's likely to be a problem is questionable, but I have a pet peeve about inaccurate absolute statements. So while there is likely to be little incentive to do so, there isn't "absolutely no incentive to boot".

As for keeping track; Press o->guild tab->click on the words "last on" and it sorts the roster for you. I do it every day on logging in simply to see who's on at that time. But it wouldn't be hard to keep track of who is playing once a week in a small guild as it wasn't hard to boot everyone who hasn't been on for a week, or whatever the established limit was, in a large one.

[slarden]

Less incentive, sure. But you can still have a case where a guild has a member that, for whatever reason, doesn't play enough to earn as much renown as a bigger bonus on the rest of the guilds renown would provide. Whether that's likely to be a problem is questionable, but I have a pet peeve about inaccurate absolute statements. So while there is likely to be little incentive to do so, there isn't "absolutely no incentive to boot".

As for keeping track; Press o->guild tab->click on the words "last on" and it sorts the roster for you. I do it every day on logging in simply to see who's on at that time. But it wouldn't be hard to keep track of who is playing once a week in a small guild as it wasn't hard to boot everyone who hasn't been on for a week, or whatever the established limit was, in a large one.

Sure there are no absolutes. The new system won't stop all booting/shunning of casuals either.

We would be far better off without decay and a 100% booting penalty than we would under the current system. When you look at the problems, it ultimately leads you back to decay. Most guilds don't even look at the mechanics until they stop moving forward and dont' understand why. Without decay people just keep playing and advancing at whatever pace happens. it's much like character leveling. One person caps in a week and another takes 6 months or longer, but nothing is stopping the characters from advancing with a timed daily penalty process. If that existed the casual players that took months to advance would likely never hit 25.

At level 60 under the new system a guild of 10 or less gets 1,655.540 decay a year. To get to level 100 you need 50,000,000. If a guild is stalled around level 60 where it needs 39,200,000 renown to get to level 100, eliminating the 1,614,816 won't be the difference between guilds stalling at 60 or reaching 100 in one year, it will be the difference between a guild stalling at 60 and getting to level 62 within one year. I saw ALL large guilds in Sarlona gain more than that in the last few weeks.

I hope the people arguing against small guilds the same break large guilds got, and Turbine, understand that eliminating decay would at most give small guilds 2-3 EXTRA levels per year for any small guild at level 60 . I just fail to see the benefit of such a restriction when large guilds are able to advance more than that in the past few weeks. There is a mathematical reason for this and I will be happy to show it to you. The bottom line is there is really no good reason for putting a level cap on small guilds in the form of decay.

I think this also shows that Turbine wouldn't put elixir sales at risk by removing decay. Most small guilds will take many years to get to 100 or even 90.

[Dandonk]

Sure there are no absolutes. The new system won't stop all booting/shunning of casuals either.

We would be far better off without decay and a 100% booting penalty than we would under the current system. When you look at the problems, it ultimately leads you back to decay. Most guilds don't even look at the mechanics until they stop moving forward and dont' understand why. Without decay people just keep playing and advancing at whatever pace happens. it's much like character leveling. One person levels in a weeek and another takes 6 months or longer, but nothing is stopping the characters from advancing with a timed daily penalty process. If that existed the casual players that took months to advance would likely never hit 20.

I will have to agree that removing decay will probably stop most of the unfortunate behaviour that led to the recent change. Maybe not all, but it should be close.

The kick penalty, whether 100% or the current one, needs to be addressed at some point and in some form, unless decay goes away, at least. Oh, and level 100 renown would have to be openended, too, or those guilds would wind up in trouble when kicking, too.

[smatt]

So if you have soemone in your guild that turns into a total jerk, crating a 100% removal panalty is fair?

Nope...

Peopel have to come to the conclusion that the system was never meant for or designed so that all guilds could reach 100... Period.. Right or wrong, no matter what your opinion is...

I know life isn't fair... That sign that the doctor was holding when you were born that said it was, was a complete lie... :eek:

[slarden]

So if you have soemone in your guild that turns into a total jerk, crating a 100% removal panalty is fair?

Nope...

Peopel have to come to the conclusion that the system was never meant for or designed so that all guilds could reach 100... Period.. Right or wrong, no matter what your opinion is...

I know life isn't fair... That sign that the doctor was holding when you were born that said it was, was a complete lie... :eek:

With the 100% penalty the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. That seems fair to me. It's like the person was never in the guild. You think it is fair that a guild kicks a person and then gets to keep 75% of the renown that person earned?

[theslimshady]

With the 100% penalty the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. That seems fair to me. It's like the person was never in the guild. You think it is fair that a guild kicks a person and then gets to keep 75% of the renown that person earned?

yes and i dont see what kicking people has to do with the fixing or removal of decay seems like a bias agenda
if kicking was a negitive issue based on some kinda exploit or something i would like to see data on it
in my personal experience as a leader of a 200 member guild i have maybe had to kick 15 peeps in three years
one of em a long time officer who recently got a divorce went on a binger and started talking vulgarly to some women folk in my guild {some of the things he said where inexcusible } he would have cost me 4 million renown under this idea it was bad enough to lose a million

[twigzz]

So the other thread gets closed and you guys just move to another thread?

/IBTL

[Chaos000]

Asking small guilds to recruit doesn't work for a totally different reason. Small guilds are small by choice - not because of some crazy theory that small guild bonus is keeping us from recruiting. If you do the math adding a member will always be beneficial unless the person does next to nothing.

I’m going to have to call shenanigans to the statement that adding a member will always be beneficial.

For example: (to do the math) take a theoretical guild of 6 and assume each player gains (43.94) x10 the amount of renown with a +300% small guild bonus. Net total: ~440 + a bonus of 1320 = 1760. Adding an additional member reduces the small guild bonus by 15% (300 - 15= 285%). New total: ~440 + a bonus of 1254 = 1694. That translates to roughly 66 less guild renown each member is earning from before despite the same level of activity (1760 - 1694)

In order for the added member to be considered beneficial they will make up the net loss for the guild (66 x 6 members = 396). The guild would actually net a loss to add a new member that does not gain more than (43.94) x2 the amount of renown (still more than nothing) with a +285% small guild bonus (103 + a bonus of 293 = 396.)

Adding a member CAN be beneficial, in certain cases, adding a member has NOT ALWAYS been beneficial because of how much GUILD BONUSES can scale “per account”.

Here are the facts. ALL guilds no matter how big… struggle with decay. Guilds with a smaller number of highly active players (regardless of size) tend to struggle more. If this was untrue, it would be impossible for a smaller guild with a higher volume of highly active players to outperform a larger counterpart with more players and a handful of highly active players.

I can accept that guilds of 10 or less are still kind of under the old system that everyone wanted to get out of. If we want to get technical, even a guild of 11 got a nominal reduction in regards to decay per account. A reduction of decay for guilds 10 or less to match the reduction of a guild of 11 would “technically” be a reasonable request.

I understand the spirit of the request for smaller guilds to want a lower amount of decay similar to other guilds. However, when the “other guild” is a character capped guild that perhaps benefitted the most in the new system because the “per account” penalty hit them the hardest under the old system, it sets an unrealistic expectation that can’t be accepted conceptually.

Growth and recruitment should never be necessary for advancement. As a counterpoint, a guild should also not gain any benefit by reducing in number.

I firmly believe decreasing the decay enough to justify eliminating the guild size bonus entirely for guilds of 50 members or less is the route to go. I support allowing all guilds to have an opportunity for advancement. Gradual reduction of guild decay to nominal levels for smaller guilds to make it similar to eliminating it completely? Yes please.

An alternative? Guild ship size or number of guild amenities determines decay. New in DDO store! Guild amenities that doesn’t add to decay!

[Enoach]

With the 100% penalty the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. That seems fair to me. It's like the person was never in the guild. You think it is fair that a guild kicks a person and then gets to keep 75% of the renown that person earned?

Yes, I do think a guild should maintain some of the Renown a person earns while wearing their moniker.

But this is because I believe that while the person was a member of the Guild everything they do in game is a reflection of the Guild. Each of us have to admit that we do take notice when we see Good Play and Awful Play of what guild they are from. Sometimes the Guild name alone can open doors that would take much longer if not a member of said guild.

The problem we have is we don't spend time on the 90%, but instead spend so much time debating the 10% fringe cases.

1. Recruiting of Renown Mules <- Guilds that have no intention of holding onto membership, goal is to rise to a certain point fast

2. The guild member that has crossed the line <- Each guild that cares about it's image has a line and if it is crossed will generally take action to disassociate itself with the person.

These are important to understand that these are not the 90% of why Guild Leaders would need to remove an Character/Account from their roster. Lets get out of the emotionally charged 10% and back to discussing the 90%.

[slarden]

I’m going to have to call shenanigans to the statement that adding a member will always be beneficial.

For example: (to do the math) take a theoretical guild of 6 and assume each player gains (43.94) x10 the amount of renown with a +300% small guild bonus. Net total: ~440 + a bonus of 1320 = 1760. Adding an additional member reduces the small guild bonus by 15% (300 - 15= 285%). New total: ~440 + a bonus of 1254 = 1694. That translates to roughly 66 less guild renown each member is earning from before despite the same level of activity (1760 - 1694)

In order for the added member to be considered beneficial they will make up the net loss for the guild (66 x 6 members = 396). The guild would actually net a loss to add a new member that does not gain more than (43.94) x2 the amount of renown (still more than nothing) with a +285% small guild bonus (103 + a bonus of 293 = 396.)

Adding a member CAN be beneficial, in certain cases, adding a member has NOT ALWAYS been beneficial because of how much GUILD BONUSES can scale “per account”.

Here are the facts. ALL guilds no matter how big… struggle with decay. Guilds with a smaller number of highly active players (regardless of size) tend to struggle more. If this was untrue, it would be impossible for a smaller guild with a higher volume of highly active players to outperform a larger counterpart with more players and a handful of highly active players.

I can accept that guilds of 10 or less are still kind of under the old system that everyone wanted to get out of. If we want to get technical, even a guild of 11 got a nominal reduction in regards to decay per account. A reduction of decay for guilds 10 or less to match the reduction of a guild of 11 would “technically” be a reasonable request.

I understand the spirit of the request for smaller guilds to want a lower amount of decay similar to other guilds. However, when the “other guild” is a character capped guild that perhaps benefitted the most in the new system because the “per account” penalty hit them the hardest under the old system, it sets an unrealistic expectation that can’t be accepted conceptually.

Growth and recruitment should never be necessary for advancement. As a counterpoint, a guild should also not gain any benefit by reducing in number.

I firmly believe decreasing the decay enough to justify eliminating the guild size bonus entirely for guilds of 50 members or less is the route to go. I support allowing all guilds to have an opportunity for advancement. Gradual reduction of guild decay to nominal levels for smaller guilds to make it similar to eliminating it completely? Yes please.

An alternative? Guild ship size or number of guild amenities determines decay. New in DDO store! Guild amenities that doesn’t add to decay!

In your example, if I add a person and they only earn 24% of the renown of the average member in my guild they are still adding renown. 24% of the Average. So no this isn't something I worry about or consider because as we add people to the guild it's like adding 3 people. On average people will benefit renown and not hurt it, so I am not going to micromanage for exceptions. That makes no sense.

Secondly, anyone in the guild can add a new member. Most of the people in the guild no nothing about renown - they just play the game. They add people they want to add and don't check with me or the guild leader about it.

If we remove decay for all guilds and make slight modifications to the guild bonus (mainly flattening the 2-12 curve and making it 200% for all those sizes), small guilds are still at a big disadvantage for leveling, but they still have a chance to get the ships and amenities as consistent with the original vision. I think the leveling disadvantage is fine - it's not a penalty, it's simply slower progress.

If they want to get rid of small guild bonus, I am actually fine with that if they don't tie ships and amenties to levels. Because those have in game benefits and all gulids should have a chance for those. I don't really care about level. This was recognized up front and that is why the small guild bonus was included.

I understand the frustration many of you in large guilds have that some small guilds made tremendous progress and climbed to 100 with fewer members while your guilds struggled with decay. I like the idea of the system changing from an activity based system with chess-like ratings to something closer to a true leveling system.

[eris2323]

Where are all these guilds that are doing mass recruiting, it must be a horrendous problem, somewhere, for all of you to be terrified out of your boots.

Or it's not.

And 3 idle people are able to keep a level 70+ guild afloat, and 4 idle people are able to keep a level 91 guild afloat.

(let's just not forget people. four people is all it takes to keep a level 91 guild floating... and they want it easier for small guilds)

:)

[Gremmlynn]

So if you have soemone in your guild that turns into a total jerk, crating a 100% removal panalty is fair?

Nope...

Peopel have to come to the conclusion that the system was never meant for or designed so that all guilds could reach 100... Period.. Right or wrong, no matter what your opinion is...

I know life isn't fair... That sign that the doctor was holding when you were born that said it was, was a complete lie... :eek:People don't tend to turn into total jerks after not being a total jerk for a long enough period to represent a huge loss to the guild. More likely, someone has a really big falling out with the GL or a close crony and that GL doesn't want to give up the renown the booted player earned to settle this personal issue.

That's what keeps a sort of balance of power in place.

Much better than allowing guilds to mass boot a large number of players they exploited to gain their levels and keep 75% of the renown.

Also, I think people have come to the conclusion that the system works best if all guilds have the ability to reach level 100. I agree.

[Gremmlynn]

The kick penalty, whether 100% or the current one, needs to be addressed at some point and in some form, unless decay goes away, at least. Oh, and level 100 renown would have to be openended, too, or those guilds would wind up in trouble when kicking, too.I disagree as that just moves back the point at which guilds can start jettisoning players. IMO, kicking a player from the guild should not be something to be done lightly and if a level 100 guild drops in level because of it, they can always gain it back.

[Dandonk]

I disagree as that just moves back the point at which guilds can start jettisoning players. IMO, kicking a player from the guild should not be something to be done lightly and if a level 100 guild drops in level because of it, they can always gain it back.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Methinks there are some serious issues with the kicking mechanic, and I can't figure out how to get it to work. Oh, well.

Anyway.... Turbine? Hello? Are you there? Or has this turned into a support-ticketish scenario?

[eris2323]

I haven't noticed mass recruiting. There have been 2 cases in my guild where large guilds sent recrutment tells to vets. This was mentioned by someone else in the general discussion thread as well. That is the only "recruitment" change I've noticed in the last few weeks.

As for people keeping guilds afloat, it's a matter of activity. The same was possible with large guilds under the old system but large guilds said they couldn't generate enough activity to level. If you think this is how guild levels should be measured it woudl be a recommendation to go back to the old system.

As of right now only small guilds of 10 or less under the old activity based system. Guilds slightly above 10 didn't much benefit either and their level is also heavily based on activity.

I don't think the double-standard works. We should either revert to the activity-based system because as you pointed out guilds can still level. Or we should go to a leveling advancement system. I prefer the latter.

The reality is most small guilds are under level 60 and less than 1% are over 90. So using a level 90 guild isn't really an accurate benchmark for a small guild.

You use a lot of words.

Here's the facts: you admitted 3 people are keeping your guild afloat.

Another person admitted 4 casual people keeping their guild afloat.

you want it easier than that?

4. casual. players. are holding, and probably gaining towards level 100 (I haven't checked).

Your percentages and math you like to make up are garbage - you can't know how many 'guilds' are just 1 guy who formed a guild to get invites to stop... you can't know many things, and yet you assume them all to be true.

So what is it, exactly... that you want?

You want it made so that what, 1 person can hold a level 100 guild afloat?

One person can casually play their way to 100? How long would you like it take? a day? two days?

Stop trying to cheapen the guild experience by demanding that solo and tiny guilds be able to advance quicker than they are now - they're doing fine.

ANY guild system where any solo-er player can equal a guild of 100 players ever is, in my opinion - broken. Totally.

A GUILD IS NOT A SOLO PLAYER. AND SMALL GUILDS ARE DOING FINE THANK YOU THEY DON'T NEED YET MORE ADVANTAGES.

[eris2323]

Besides - the system is fine - tiny guilds will still have a use for renown pots, because, holy moly, if you three casual players are keeping your guild afloat, a few store-bought potions should help you AND turbine.

Yay for turbine, for retaining a customer for their product - the poor renown potions.

And thank you, tiny guilds, for your valiant donation towards keeping DDO afloat.