Upcoming Guild Changes

[SpiderPig]

Is there any chance that we could get information about the upcoming guild changes?

I am mainly interested in the reintroduction of guild renown decay.

As a small account guild a reintroduction of decay would cripple us, if we could get heads up on it then that would allow us to prepare for it at least.

I would hate to have to disband after all the work we have to get the guild to cap.

Any PC members like to offer their 2 cents?

[phalaeo]

PC members sign an NDA, so I doubt you'll hear anything from them.

[Ivan_Milic]

They wont be putting decay back.

[Pandir]

I know Turbine does some crazy things, but i doubt they're crazy enough to reinstate guild decay.

[Ivan_Milic]

Would be better to spend guild renown on some limited buffs.

[SpiderPig]

I guess I am looking for an official response, I don't trust Turbine enough to accept the general public assumption that Turbine won't reinstate Guild Decay.

[Ivan_Milic]

I guess I am looking for an official response, I don't trust Turbine enough to accept the general public assumption that Turbine won't reinstate Guild Decay.

Good luck with that.

[SirValentine]

Bringing back decay would be wonderful. The lack has ruined the entire guild-level system.

[Gauthaag]

oh, yeah and let renown drop only as quest reward so we have choice for epic quests

[Ivan_Milic]

Bringing back decay would be wonderful. The lack has ruined the entire guild-level system.

How did it ruin?
Because your guild is not the highest anymore?

[Pandir]

Bringing back decay would be wonderful. The lack has ruined the entire guild-level system.

I assume that's sarcasm.

[Ivan_Milic]

I assume that's sarcasm.

Nah, he keeps writing that, and never explains his reasons, so its about his ego.

[jaegarnel]

Well to be fair, now that there is no decay, guild level means nothing but how big your guild is and how long it has been active.

I don't care about that at all (I'm in a small guild that isn't even close to 100, and would probably stagnate around lvl 60 if decay came back), but I imagine some people do.
A high guild level was supposed to be a reward for elite guilds, now pretty much every guild has it. I'm not sure that's a change for the better tbh.

[Pandir]

Well to be fair, now that there is no decay, guild level means nothing but how big your guild is and how long it has been active.

I don't care about that at all (I'm in a small guild that isn't even close to 100, and would probably stagnate around lvl 60 if decay came back), but I imagine some people do.
A high guild level was supposed to be a reward for elite guilds, now pretty much every guild has it. I'm not sure that's a change for the better tbh.

I dunno i don't feel like there was anything elite attached to it, it just meant your guild was the right size and you had active members. Since 15.2 it meant you had a big guild.

Without decay everyone has a chance to reach top. It still will take much longer in a small guild than a big one. Seems alot fairer. What they could do is offer some bonuses for renown gained past level 100.

You also don't have to spend an inane amount of time to stay where you are, the guild renown really reminded me of Vanilla Wow, spend hours and hours just to stay where you are and not lose rank.
I like more freedom and i will never ever do something like this again.

[Ivan_Milic]

Well to be fair, now that there is no decay, guild level means nothing but how big your guild is and how long it has been active.

I don't care about that at all (I'm in a small guild that isn't even close to 100, and would probably stagnate around lvl 60 if decay came back), but I imagine some people do.
A high guild level was supposed to be a reward for elite guilds, now pretty much every guild has it. I'm not sure that's a change for the better tbh.

Every guild has what, 100 lvls?
Lol, max 10 guilds per server have lvl 100.

[Gremmlynn]

Well to be fair, now that there is no decay, guild level means nothing but how big your guild is and how long it has been active.

I don't care about that at all (I'm in a small guild that isn't even close to 100, and would probably stagnate around lvl 60 if decay came back), but I imagine some people do.
A high guild level was supposed to be a reward for elite guilds, now pretty much every guild has it. I'm not sure that's a change for the better tbh.Not so much elite as guilds that played the system by allowing the renown mechanics dictate guild size and membership.

[Entarus]

I would hate to have to disband after all the work we have to get the guild to cap.

Don't be such a drama queen. The decay system was in place to give balance between larger and smaller guilds. Smaller guilds accumulate renown more slowly but also lose it more slowly. Larger guilds had a more harsh renown decay to offset the higher amount of renown they would accumulate. Bottom line is that if your members are active then it doesn't matter what your size is, it is possible to move forward, even if it is a slow crawl. You get stuck or fall back when you have members that log in so they are counted as active but then do not contribute any renown.

I cannot say if the decay system is a good thing or a bad thing. I do understand why it was there in the first place. One could argue that guild level held some meaning at some point, but it does not any more. 10 level 100 guilds per server? I don't think so. I have seen a large number of guilds hit 100 lately on Khyber, far more than 10. Many of these guilds would have never managed this with the decay system still in place, or at least it would have taken a greater amount of time. It is up to the devs to decide if this is good for the game or not.

My 2 cents are that the game is at an all time low on player activity. If the decay system is implemented in the same way as before then a lot of guilds will likely see backwards progression due to that lack of activity combined with the huge reduction in renown collected at end rewards when coms of valor were introduced. I don't think decay is a bad thing but it needs to be reworked before being reimplemented.

[Gremmlynn]

Don't be such a drama queen. The decay system was in place to give balance between larger and smaller guilds. Smaller guilds accumulate renown more slowly but also lose it more slowly. Larger guilds had a more harsh renown decay to offset the higher amount of renown they would accumulate. Bottom line is that if your members are active then it doesn't matter what your size is, it is possible to move forward, even if it is a slow crawl. You get stuck or fall back when you have members that log in so they are counted as active but then do not contribute any renown.

I cannot say if the decay system is a good thing or a bad thing. I do understand why it was there in the first place. One could argue that guild level held some meaning at some point, but it does not any more. 10 level 100 guilds per server? I don't think so. I have seen a large number of guilds hit 100 lately on Khyber, far more than 10. Many of these guilds would have never managed this with the decay system still in place, or at least it would have taken a greater amount of time. It is up to the devs to decide if this is good for the game or not.

My 2 cents are that the game is at an all time low on player activity. If the decay system is implemented in the same way as before then a lot of guilds will likely see backwards progression due to that lack of activity combined with the huge reduction in renown collected at end rewards when coms of valor were introduced. I don't think decay is a bad thing but it needs to be reworked before being reimplemented.Anything decay added to the game, IMO, was far outweighed by the wedge it drove between players based on their activity. It basically punished players for guilding with anyone less active than they were.

[Pandir]

Anything decay added to the game, IMO, was far outweighed by the wedge it drove between players based on their activity. It basically punished players for guilding with anyone less active than they were.

Don't forget actively punishing players wanting to take a break for a while. If anything guild decay encouraged quite a few unhealthy behaviours.

[Shorlong]

Don't be such a drama queen. The decay system was in place to give balance between larger and smaller guilds. Smaller guilds accumulate renown more slowly but also lose it more slowly. Larger guilds had a more harsh renown decay to offset the higher amount of renown they would accumulate. Bottom line is that if your members are active then it doesn't matter what your size is, it is possible to move forward, even if it is a slow crawl. You get stuck or fall back when you have members that log in so they are counted as active but then do not contribute any renown.

I cannot say if the decay system is a good thing or a bad thing. I do understand why it was there in the first place. One could argue that guild level held some meaning at some point, but it does not any more. 10 level 100 guilds per server? I don't think so. I have seen a large number of guilds hit 100 lately on Khyber, far more than 10. Many of these guilds would have never managed this with the decay system still in place, or at least it would have taken a greater amount of time. It is up to the devs to decide if this is good for the game or not.

My 2 cents are that the game is at an all time low on player activity. If the decay system is implemented in the same way as before then a lot of guilds will likely see backwards progression due to that lack of activity combined with the huge reduction in renown collected at end rewards when coms of valor were introduced. I don't think decay is a bad thing but it needs to be reworked before being reimplemented.

According to yourddo, there are 25 guilds across all servers that are level 100. Granted, I don't know how long ago that was updated, as it has my guild at level 44, which we where back in November, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Levonestral]

The topic had been discussed back in late 2011:
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/349029-Time-to-Remove-Guild-Renown-Decay

And again in 2012:
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/395934-Guild-Renown-Changes

This was basically the "push" that I believe resulted in the removal of the original decay system. In the end, I believe the last official response we saw (except NDA discussions of course) is that they *might* introduce some kind of decay system for the last 10 levels (90-100) at a later date. Though I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything recent what their stance is now.

One thing to consider now compared to then is that in epic content we now have to choose between Comm's and renown at the end rewards which, if reintroduced, would make decay management a lot harder.

If Turbine really is considering putting back a decay system, then they really need to be careful.

[Chai]

Its fine as it is with no decay. I can guild with friends I like to play with in game, regardless of how much renown/day they bring in. Id rather make that decision based on who I enjoy playing with the most -vs- who keeps the guild in the black decay wise.

[Ivan_Milic]

Don't be such a drama queen. The decay system was in place to give balance between larger and smaller guilds. Smaller guilds accumulate renown more slowly but also lose it more slowly. Larger guilds had a more harsh renown decay to offset the higher amount of renown they would accumulate. Bottom line is that if your members are active then it doesn't matter what your size is, it is possible to move forward, even if it is a slow crawl. You get stuck or fall back when you have members that log in so they are counted as active but then do not contribute any renown.

I cannot say if the decay system is a good thing or a bad thing. I do understand why it was there in the first place. One could argue that guild level held some meaning at some point, but it does not any more. 10 level 100 guilds per server? I don't think so. I have seen a large number of guilds hit 100 lately on Khyber, far more than 10. Many of these guilds would have never managed this with the decay system still in place, or at least it would have taken a greater amount of time. It is up to the devs to decide if this is good for the game or not.

My 2 cents are that the game is at an all time low on player activity. If the decay system is implemented in the same way as before then a lot of guilds will likely see backwards progression due to that lack of activity combined with the huge reduction in renown collected at end rewards when coms of valor were introduced. I don't think decay is a bad thing but it needs to be reworked before being reimplemented.

How can you not say if it was bad or good thing?
My guild kicked around 50 people from the guild so we could gain lvls, instead of stagnating.
Name those guilds then.

[Kalimah]

Its fine as it is with no decay. I can guild with friends I like to play with in game, regardless of how much renown/day they bring in. Id rather make that decision based on who I enjoy playing with the most -vs- who keeps the guild in the black decay wise.

This. Plus....hell im taking valor comms on 99% of my end rewards. That used to be all guild renown.

[McFlay]

Its fine as it is with no decay. I can guild with friends I like to play with in game, regardless of how much renown/day they bring in. Id rather make that decision based on who I enjoy playing with the most -vs- who keeps the guild in the black decay wise.

I understand this mentality, but on the other hand, I have a few friends on my friends list that have alts in several of the large level 100 guilds on our server. Sometimes for hahas when I'm grouped with other people in those guilds I'll ask if they know either of my buddies, and most the time they say no, guilds too big, I haven't ever grouped with them. How exactly is a guild like that "a group of people you enjoy playing with the most" if people in the guild don't even play with or even know of each other?

[Kalimah]

Lets be real. The old guild decay system was dumb. There is no reason that a guild of 1-5 people should have the easiest road to max their guild out. Everyone should have the same amount of experience to level. You cant tell me that 100 people all working toward the same goal SHOULD NOT get there faster than 5. I refuse to accept that logic. The only who do are those who directly benefit from it.

[McFlay]

How can you not say if it was bad or good thing?
My guild kicked around 50 people from the guild so we could gain lvls, instead of stagnating.
Name those guilds then.

And one week later you probably couldn't have named 90%+ of those 50 players. Must have been heart wrenching breaking apart such a tightly knit group. But of course...you'll just reply how close friends you all were blah blah, even though in reality a lot of the current massive level 100 guilds on my server anyhow are just made up of people who could care less about a guild in any way and just look to join a high level guild for buffs lol. Every time I see people in chat looking for guild...its almost always "looking for guild 70+"...why is guild level always mentioned over what they are looking for as far as the guild culture and what the players are like, shouldn't a guild be about team work and comradery and not free buffs yoh?

[Ivan_Milic]

And one week later you probably couldn't have named 90%+ of those 50 players. Must have been heart wrenching breaking apart such a tightly knit group. But of course...you'll just reply how close friends you all were blah blah, even though in reality a lot of the current massive level 100 guilds on my server anyhow are just made up of people who could care less about a guild in any way and just look to join a high level guild for buffs lol. Every time I see people in chat looking for guild...its almost always "looking for guild 70+"...why is guild level always mentioned over what they are looking for as far as the guild culture and what the players are like, shouldn't a guild be about team work and comradery and not free buffs yoh?

No, we werent friends, who said it was tightly knit group?
Guild is meant to be for socializing, not the opposite when guild decay was active.
Because even in high lvl guild you could have good guild culture and good players, I know it sounds impossible.
YOu know, 2 birds with 1 stone, if anything lvl 70+ means the guild is active and its working good, if its lvl 30 guild how can you know if its active or not?

[McFlay]

Lets be real. The old guild decay system was dumb. There is no reason that a guild of 1-5 people should have the easiest road to max their guild out. Everyone should have the same amount of experience to level. You cant tell me that 100 people all working toward the same goal SHOULD NOT get there faster than 5. I refuse to accept that logic. The only who do are those who directly benefit from it.

It was all about activity before. 100 people playing 5 hours a day would have hit 100 way faster then 5 people playing 5 hours a day. The only difference was the small guilds that hit super high levels, which was only a very small handful of them, were very selective in their recruitment. Finding a small handful of people who consistently played a lot was a lot easier then clumping together 100 people who all consistently played a lot. People just kept making poor comparisons of a 100 person guild where in an average day maybe only 40 people logged in and played, to small guilds who in an average day all their members logged in, when in reality they should have been comparing to small guilds where only 40% of its members logged in and played in an average day.

Had people did that, they would have realized the truth. Sure most large guilds got in the 60-70 range and stagnated, but small guilds that had the same average play time per player as those large guilds still hadn't even hit a point where they were getting hit hard enough by decay to really stagnate in level. They just got to listen to large guilds complain they were stuck at level 67 while their guild was still making slow progress to hit level 50.

Turbine had their chance to go any way they wanted with guild levels, and they chose move it in the direction of guild level being a measure of the largest guild over all other factors. Some of us would have preferred a system more rewarding to active players and tight knit groups, where as others wanted a system more rewarding to whoever can clump the most bodies in a guild. I'm not saying the old system was perfect, but the new system isn't any better. They just went from one extreme to the other.

[Kalimah]

..... The only difference was the small guilds that hit super high levels, which was only a very small handful of them, were very selective in their recruitment. Finding a small handful of people who consistently played a lot was a lot easier then clumping together 100 people who all consistently played a lot.

You hit the nail on the head right there. The normal way that people play is that they are really hot for a while (playing a lot) and then the'yll go through cool periods and then back to hot again etc. This is due to work, school, burnout, etc.

So the problem we were running into is that for our 30 player guild (witha ll their alts) you may have only 15-20 be really active at any time. But...what do you do with the other 15 or so? Those guys who have spent real cash on buying boats or upgrades, or the team speak server or whatever. Those guys are your pals. They need time off..so what do you do? Do you kick them (and take the big hit) or do you let them sit (and take the hit).

That system is stupid for an MMO with microtransactions related directly to the guild levelling process. If you disagree then we will agree that we are not going to agree because I have zero room for wiggle on the stupidity factor that was the old decay system.

[McFlay]

No, we werent friends, who said it was tightly knit group?
Guild is meant to be for socializing, not the opposite when guild decay was active.
Because even in high lvl guild you could have good guild culture and good players, I know it sounds impossible.
YOu know, 2 birds with 1 stone, if anything lvl 70+ means the guild is active and its working good, if its lvl 30 guild how can you know if its active or not?

That's the flaw with the current system. I just don't see why guild should be nothing more then a measure of body count. You kicked 50 people from your guild, but you weren't friends with any of them? What's a guild at that point, a group of people that enjoy playing together or a body count for buffs?

Its funny how you bring of the meaning of guild level as well now. When I see a level 100 guild all I think is big guild. I don't think active, or good culture, because most the people I see in big guilds now aren't even running with guild members, and don't even know some of their guild members. When I see low-mid level guilds all I think is new players, or small groups of friends who didn't want to disband their small guilds just to go jump on the big guild bandwagon for buffs. It was under the old guild system 70+ meant active, activity is irrelevant, size is king.

[Ivan_Milic]

That's the flaw with the current system. I just don't see why guild should be nothing more then a measure of body count. You kicked 50 people from your guild, but you weren't friends with any of them? What's a guild at that point, a group of people that enjoy playing together or a body count for buffs?

Its funny how you bring of the meaning of guild level as well now. When I see a level 100 guild all I think is big guild. I don't think active, or good culture, because most the people I see in big guilds now aren't even running with guild members, and don't even know some of their guild members. When I see low-mid level guilds all I think is new players, or small groups of friends who didn't want to disband their small guilds just to go jump on the big guild bandwagon for buffs. It was under the old guild system 70+ meant active, activity is irrelevant, size is king.

Guild is here so you can make friends easier, just because I join a guild doesnt mean all of them are instantly my friends.

[Uska]

Every guild has what, 100 lvls?
Lol, max 10 guilds per server have lvl 100.

Baloney

[Ivan_Milic]

Baloney

Well show me then.

[bsquishwizzy]

If guild decay came back, I'd have to shutter my guild.

Technically, it's not even my guild. I "inherited" it from someone who "inherited" it from someone else. I don't even want to be guild leader, honestly, so I'm just keeping it until one or more former leaders decides to come back (if they ever do). So it's me and maybe 4 other people, most of them who solo.

I know I probably could work out arrangements with other, larger guilds to fold in the active players should I need to shut it down. Still, It's not really my guild. I don't really want to kill something that I didn't invest in from the beginning. And really, the thing is on auto-pilot at this point.

Hence, reinstating guild decay would be - to use a technical term here - "bad."

[Chai]

I understand this mentality, but on the other hand, I have a few friends on my friends list that have alts in several of the large level 100 guilds on our server. Sometimes for hahas when I'm grouped with other people in those guilds I'll ask if they know either of my buddies, and most the time they say no, guilds too big, I haven't ever grouped with them. How exactly is a guild like that "a group of people you enjoy playing with the most" if people in the guild don't even play with or even know of each other?

Thats a player issue and not one that can be solved by guild logistics. What can be solved by logistics is not making it so it becomes statistically advantageous to remove friends who are less active.

What decay really accomplished was being a deterrant to someone making a come one come all guild, leveling it, then booting all of the folks but their friends. There just needs to be an increasing penalty for booting alot of people at once. If people want to quit there doesnt need to be a penalty, just if the leader removes a bunch of folks in a smaller period of time. With that in place, decay isnt really needed. Players earned a high guild level playing casually, let them keep it.

[Annihilyght]

...Bottom line is that if your members are active then it doesn't matter what your size is...

That is definitely not what she said.

[TrinityTurtle]

Its funny how you bring of the meaning of guild level as well now. When I see a level 100 guild all I think is big guild. I don't think active, or good culture, because most the people I see in big guilds now aren't even running with guild members, and don't even know some of their guild members. When I see low-mid level guilds all I think is new players, or small groups of friends who didn't want to disband their small guilds just to go jump on the big guild bandwagon for buffs. It was under the old guild system 70+ meant active, activity is irrelevant, size is king.

This isn't necessarily true. My guild is level 100, and has been for some time. We have about 13 people. I have spoken to all but the honorary 14th member and know them reasonably well. I don't play with most of them, as they were a 10 man guild when joined, and they absorbed my whole group together when our last guild was nasty to Coddex for some reason. And while we're welcome to join them, it's not easy to mesh 13 in one group all at the same time. But we all do know each other, and only welcome people we get on with and think are going to stick around.

[Flavilandile]

Is there any chance that we could get information about the upcoming guild changes?

I am mainly interested in the reintroduction of guild renown decay.

As a small account guild a reintroduction of decay would cripple us, if we could get heads up on it then that would allow us to prepare for it at least.

I would hate to have to disband after all the work we have to get the guild to cap.

Any PC members like to offer their 2 cents?

Sorry we are tied with the NDA... But I'll ask what we can be allowed to say about the upcoming Guild changes.

[gordgray]

Thats a player issue and not one that can be solved by guild logistics. What can be solved by logistics is not making it so it becomes statistically advantageous to remove friends who are less active.

What decay really accomplished was being a deterrant to someone making a come one come all guild, leveling it.

This is the very reason that I can see.

[patang01]

Bringing back decay would be wonderful. The lack has ruined the entire guild-level system.

O.o

You jest right?

[patang01]

And one week later you probably couldn't have named 90%+ of those 50 players. Must have been heart wrenching breaking apart such a tightly knit group. But of course...you'll just reply how close friends you all were blah blah, even though in reality a lot of the current massive level 100 guilds on my server anyhow are just made up of people who could care less about a guild in any way and just look to join a high level guild for buffs lol. Every time I see people in chat looking for guild...its almost always "looking for guild 70+"...why is guild level always mentioned over what they are looking for as far as the guild culture and what the players are like, shouldn't a guild be about team work and comradery and not free buffs yoh?

Does it matter tho? I think the decay was dumb, most renown weekends were a waste. Now they matter as far as a bonus goes. I don't care how many 100 level guilds there are or however many guild members they have. I just play to have fun and having renown decay just lead to member purges for the emotional idea of trying to increase levels.

[BurnerD]

I think they would be better off taking the cap off of levels and introducing some new unique rewards for higher levels instead of starting decay again.

[FestusHood]

I think they would be better off taking the cap off of levels and introducing some new unique rewards for higher levels instead of starting decay again.

How about duration of buffs = 1 minuter per guild level. Uncap guild levels at least up to 360.

[Gremmlynn]

And one week later you probably couldn't have named 90%+ of those 50 players. Must have been heart wrenching breaking apart such a tightly knit group. But of course...you'll just reply how close friends you all were blah blah, even though in reality a lot of the current massive level 100 guilds on my server anyhow are just made up of people who could care less about a guild in any way and just look to join a high level guild for buffs lol. Every time I see people in chat looking for guild...its almost always "looking for guild 70+"...why is guild level always mentioned over what they are looking for as far as the guild culture and what the players are like, shouldn't a guild be about team work and comradery and not free buffs yoh?This really depends on any particular members level of personal commitment to the game. In my experience most guilds consist of a core of everyday players to which playing is a daily part of their life. These players likely know each other quite well.

While some guilds stop at this, others have a, often larger, group of players who play less often or consistently, often called casual players. These were the players who were hurt by the old decay system. Which, IMO, was bad for the game as this is the group that adds the most mass to massively multi-player games.

[SirValentine]

How did it ruin?


Because it makes guild levels meaningless. Anyone can get to any level now, with no skill or effort or teamwork, merely time.



Because your guild is not the highest anymore?


Actually, the opposite. My guild never was the highest, or even in the top 5, on my server. Now, it IS the highest.

I would much rather have a lower guild level I know my guild earns, than a higher freebie-giveaway-easy-button level.

[SirValentine]

A high guild level was supposed to be a reward for elite guilds, now pretty much every guild has it. I'm not sure that's a change for the better tbh.

Exactly.

[Azithoth]

Well show me then.

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/437123-%28100%29-level-guilds-of-Argonnessen

and there's a few more now...

[Pandir]

Because it makes guild levels meaningless. Anyone can get to any level now, with no skill or effort or teamwork, merely time.



Actually, the opposite. My guild never was the highest, or even in the top 5, on my server. Now, it IS the highest.

I would much rather have a lower guild level I know my guild earns, than a higher freebie-giveaway-easy-button level.

There was never any teamwork or skill involved in guild levels, only time spent playing. Oh well and i guess dedication as in log in to play even if you don't feel like it just to make your renown quota.

[blerkington]

Bringing back decay would be wonderful. The lack has ruined the entire guild-level system.

Hi,

The two decay models that we had for as long as I've been paying attention to this were pretty awful.

The first one made for some very unpleasant decisions for medium and large sized guild leaders regarding low activity players. You had to be active and running quite lean to get to and stay at the upper levels, and many guilds got stuck and stagnated.

The second one basically gave a free pass to guilds above a certain size to ignore decay. It promoted the mega guild, and trivialised the achievement of guild levels. All you had to do was join an existing big guild, you weren't even required to contribute as long as there was a reasonably active core. Sheer size would allow you to ignore decay and level fairly quickly.

I'm in a solo guild, and didn't have it particuarly good under either regime. I don't care about getting to 100; at 73 I have pretty much everything I want. What I don't want to go back to is struggling just to maintain my level, for which I've worked hard, being unable to take a break without disastrous consequences for my renown total, and having to choose between COVs and renown for end rewards.

Your remarks make me wonder whether you are pining for one of these bad models, or do you have a better alternative in mind? I am sincerely interested, because if decay does come back, I'd like to see it return in a less damaging way.

[Ivan_Milic]

Because it makes guild levels meaningless. Anyone can get to any level now, with no skill or effort or teamwork, merely time.



So you would like xp decay also?
Nothing changed with decay, just takes less time to get to 100 now.

[Ivan_Milic]

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/437123-%28100%29-level-guilds-of-Argonnessen

and there's a few more now...

If your guild is level 99 or even 100 and i missed that - please post in the thread

Are they all 100?

[Gremmlynn]

Because it makes guild levels meaningless. Anyone can get to any level now, with no skill or effort or teamwork, merely time.Except that time was all it ever took. Those who could put in the time, got the levels, those who couldn't got booted or their guilds got left behind. What skill, effort or teamwork did it take to pop chests or choose renown rewards?

Actually, the opposite. My guild never was the highest, or even in the top 5, on my server. Now, it IS the highest.

I would much rather have a lower guild level I know my guild earns, than a higher freebie-giveaway-easy-button level.So you feel you are undeserving because you either lack the time or the inclination to spend it poping chests in a video game, or spending money on elixirs, or gaming the system so the mechanics of it are the determining factor of guild size?

I'm thinking Turbine found turning guilds from gaming communities into mini-games unto themselves wasn't a really good business decision. In rewarding the players that were the winners, they may have found they created to many former players who were losers simply due to getting what they wanted out of the game. By that I mean the players who were basically unable to be in most active guilds without making what would pretty much be a major life style change to do so.

While you may see the game as a competition, Turbine sees it as a business and making many customers losers by default is not a good way to retain them.

[Azithoth]

If your guild is level 99 or even 100 and i missed that - please post in the thread

Are they all 100?

yes, they are all 100

[Ivan_Milic]

SO 20 guilds are lvl 100, how long are guild lvls here, 4 years?

[madmaxhunter]

It's real simple.

I quit DDO because of renown decay. Dealing with half a guild wanting me to boot inactive and casual players and the other half threatening to leave if I did. The GAME (read that, it's a friggin game) became un-fun.

I came back when I learned that decay was suspended.

I will leave for good if it's reinstated.

[McFlay]

Thats a player issue and not one that can be solved by guild logistics. What can be solved by logistics is not making it so it becomes statistically advantageous to remove friends who are less active.

What decay really accomplished was being a deterrant to someone making a come one come all guild, leveling it, then booting all of the folks but their friends. There just needs to be an increasing penalty for booting alot of people at once. If people want to quit there doesnt need to be a penalty, just if the leader removes a bunch of folks in a smaller period of time. With that in place, decay isnt really needed. Players earned a high guild level playing casually, let them keep it.

The problem I have with the current system is when you talk about people earning their high level guilds. You can put 10 guys in a guild who have all pulled 3-4 million renown for their guild and they wouldn't be level 100, yet you can toss 10 casuals or new players into a jumbo guild thats already a high level, and those 10 guys can all have pulled less then 200k renown yet according to your definition of "earning" those 10 players earned it more then the 10 that all could have pulled 10-20 times the renown. Unless joining some jumbo guild that recruits everyone is an achievement, how exactly have those players earned their guild level? The current system is even more broken then the last.

What should be done if there is going to be no decay is they should just get rid of the renown bonuses for guild size(maybe adjust the value of each trophy), and any guild of 1-10 unique accounts should take the current 50 million renown to hit level 100, and every account to join the guild past 10 should scale how much renown it takes to level so hitting level 100 increases by 5 million per. This would make sure all the issues people had with decay and small guilds being more efficient don't make a return, but at the same time fix the current broken system of jumping in a jumbo guild being ezmode to guild level 100 even though most of the guild can be players that have contributed very little and haven't actually done anything to earn a high level guild.

[McFlay]

This really depends on any particular members level of personal commitment to the game. In my experience most guilds consist of a core of everyday players to which playing is a daily part of their life. These players likely know each other quite well.

While some guilds stop at this, others have a, often larger, group of players who play less often or consistently, often called casual players. These were the players who were hurt by the old decay system. Which, IMO, was bad for the game as this is the group that adds the most mass to massively multi-player games.

I agree with what your saying, but you really need to examine how things worked for casual players with decay, and without decay. With decay they were viewed as a penalty to a guild. Without decay they basically get a free ride to a high level guild as long as they opt to join a very large guild. Both are stupid. The devs should either just get rid of guild level completely and you can just create a level 100 guild, or find a happy medium so it takes the same amount of average effort per player to level a guild whether they are 5 steady players and 5 casuals in a guild, or 50 steady players and 50 casuals. Its just dumb having a guild system that rewards guild size over all else...in a game where 95% of the content you can only even play with a 6 man party.

[FrancisP.Fancypants]

At best, decay was a check against the power of guild buffs and something to encourage people to play more (and theoretically spend more). At worst, it forced bad recruiting practices and demands on members to farm renown, rather than gathering players of a similar temperament.

I don't know if there's a good alternative, or even if there needs to be. It's nice to have something collective to work toward, and some higher reward tiers would be good (maybe something more on the cosmetic or finite side, rather than power creep). But forcing players to metagame for the sake of the machine that provides 30 resists, or making guild leaders play musical chairs with their members is a bad idea, not a fun mechanic; and apparently for a lot of people it's an obstacle between them and the social aspect of this MMO.

[SpiderPig]

Sorry we are tied with the NDA... But I'll ask what we can be allowed to say about the upcoming Guild changes.

Thanks mate, I appreciate the reply and the effort you are taking. A lot better than "Bringing back decay would be wonderful. The lack has ruined the entire guild-level system."

[Nestroy]

There had been a real lot of suggestions, some hillarious, some nefariuos, and some superior, when we last time discussed the topic. I am too latzy now to do a prolonged search on the real subpar search tool provided on this forum for the threads (especially those from before the last foum overhaul) and the legions of postings there. So please forgive any shortcommings in advance.

When I remember correctly, several alternatives to the guild model were discussed with the better suggestions had been:


A decay modell where only the lv. 90+ or 95+ guilds get decay, always increasing by level and then open ended (with crushing decay over lv. 100) for bragging rights. Ofc there would be a competition list for those guilds.
A decay modell where decay would only happen for lv. 100+ guilds where all guilds of lv. 100+ would enter a competition (with the lists get cleared monthly) and some kind of wandering trophy for the competition winner would apply.
A shop model where guild renown could be used to "buy" buffs. Smaller guilds get better discounts. Ships and buffs cost either TP (there have not been AS yet) or renown to buy and maintain.
A decay modell where any given account cannot cost the guild more decay than the account had brought in. So basically there is a daily hit, but the hit cannot be bigger than the daily gain from all the members. Anything ever gained after deducting hit sticks permanent.
A complex model where the personal renown gained from any toon would contribute to the total renown of a guild. As long as the toon is a member, the renown counts. If the toon leaves the guild on what reason ever the renown leaves the guild too. The toon retains the renown and upon entering (or creating) another guild the renown would count for that guild. To help smaller guilds there could be a guild size bonus applying for the cummulated renown from the toons.