Fix the small/medium guild renown bonus.

[donfilibuster]

What exactly says a big guild is any better than, say, a three man guild.
Guilds are all about grouping and teams. Renown by itself is about tales and legends.
The most famous fantasy groups are fairly small, from the round table to the argonauts.
Think a three witch covenant too, or the five istari of lotr.

[maddmatt70]

It's much the same on Orien. If the endgame guilds -- Over Raided, Harmonious Balance, Phoenix Knights, etc. -- banded together into one big guild, that guild would easily be level 100 right now. All are very active and pull in more than the renown decay per account at level 100, i.e. the level multiplier (ignoring the "+10" additional accounts) even without the small/medium renown bonus. So the small guild size is actually an inhibitor of high guild levels, not a cause.

The reason I think why that super guild has not emerged on any of the servers, is more to do with the powergamer mentality than the guild size. That is, powergamers will tend to have stronger opinions and feelings about the game than the typical gamer, meaning that they will self-select and split into smaller groups over differences in ideology like in loot rules, ambition, focus on raids or epics or shortman or speedrun or game mechanics, Pepsi vs Coke, etc.

The reason why there is no 'super guild' is because of incentive. Turbine has not provided enough incentive in the renown system to create a super guild. If Turbine on day one of the renown system said that the first guild to get to level 100 will receive a full set of +5 tomes to each character in guild you bet the super guilds would exist. People will invariable take the route with the least resistance. Uprooting and change is not in people's general nature and since the renown system does not provide an incentive well what we have is the status quo.

[Shade]

Greater effort should result in greater reward.

What you call "greater", is the hugest and main thing the thread is about.. And the one thing your calculations never can factor. And really what we should be discussing, not boring mechanics.

The question is

Is the greater amoutn of work - the huge guild that has to spend a lot of time maintaining it's ranks, cleaning out problem players, ensuring they get enough very active players to get lots of renown, while trying to beat there much larger more daunting amoung of renown decay, etc..
more then:
The small guild, who limts it's size on purpose to maintain a guild renown bonus and only has to monitor a much smaller amount of players to ensure renown is flowing.

The exact amount of activity you put into question, just isn't fair. You don't know that there's not an equal amount of just as active players in the biggest guilds, as there is in the smaller guilds.

Less players doing X per player is one thing. But a guild isn't about the individual player, and thats all the numbers care about, is that player.

If you want to calculate things people may actually care about, then try this one Vanshilar:

If you put a ultra active small guild (say wanderlust) inside of a huge guild, them netting the exact same renown as they did before, just not gaining the bonus due to being in the big guild. Add in what the guild would of done without them along with the added renown decay, would they really be better off?

Probably not. Thats where the system fails. Even if every player in the super active small guild liked every player in the less active build guild, they simply cant be together due to unfair mechanics.

[emptysands]

I'd +1, but I have to spread it around a bit before I can bump you again.

For example, I believe that Wanderlust has between 15 and 50 accounts. If this is the case, you can see that each member would on average be gaining around 4100 base renown per account per day, at least in April. You can go through each guild and see how much base renown each account is gaining, based on what you believe to be their number of accounts. So although I can't say exactly how much base renown each member in a guild is getting, I can get a pretty good estimate by looking at this graph, and looking at how many accounts I think each guild really has.

At present we have 19 accounts less 1 inactive, so 18 for decay purposes. Although one member is not been playing much recently due to work/travel, so really for the past month we have had 17 active accounts with 18 accounts worth of decay.

Up until level 80 we were a "small" guild - about 12 active accounts. These 12 were the principle accounts that took the guild from start to level 80, with maybe 2-3 people leaving and returning. After level 80 we decided to increased the guild size. During April we had maybe 15-16 active players, 1 inactive account, 1 inactive active account and 2-3 recent departures.

With reference to the social aspects of a small/medium guild vs a large/super guild. Obviously from your charts and "what you'd expect", a large active guild will outperform guilds with smaller active player base. Why I think it works for WL in this context is how our size allows us to play. Our size and philosophy encourages us to keep playing because we are have fun. We almost all play within a common timezone, so we can play together. This timezone AU/NZ evening is during the quieter time on the server - so players tend to join our raids, rather than our players joining other raids. This allows us to spot other good active players and recruit them, allows us to set the tone for raids and allowed us to know what our other guildies are trying to achieve so that we can support them. Past the SOS shard - sure. Need a keepsake - no worries. Want to borrow some LDS/RDS - in the mail.

More fun, less inactive time, ability to gear quickly means we get things done. So the time to renown gain ratio is high.

Personally I think this is why small active guilds will always be successful, and large guilds will always struggle. Like any economic system there will always be winners and losers - I think that the current system is mostly good enough and it certain encourages the style of play I prefer.

[grayham]

/not signed

Whilst I understand the frustration from Shade, I disagree. The point has already been made many times, but 5 very active players is far easier to maintain than 500, and probably has a greater sense of direction and purpose. My guild (just at 32) is made up of 3 fairly active players and 2 casual- we're essentially a University reunion gang. Without question we will always choose renown as end reward as we care about the guild, plus don't need the vendor trash so much. This is far more difficult to suggest in larger guilds where newer players want items/money. If you're a new player and join a 70+ guild, why would you explore the dynamics of decay etc when all you need buff-wise has just been handed to you. In this vein, imagine the scene...

End Reward- choice of:

Various weapon/armour trash
Tales of valor
Elixir of ---- mnemonic enhancement

"mmmm, my guild is already 74, they won't miss this." Enough said.

I like the current system as there are no ubar rewards for mega guilds and little groups like ours can still enjoy moderate benefits. Ultimately it doesn't do any harm-except to people's ego's and sense of importance- so don't think anything should change...

[Hendrik]

What you call "greater", is the hugest and main thing the thread is about.. And the one thing your calculations never can factor. And really what we should be discussing, not boring mechanics.

The question is

Is the greater amoutn of work - the huge guild that has to spend a lot of time maintaining it's ranks, cleaning out problem players, ensuring they get enough very active players to get lots of renown, while trying to beat there much larger more daunting amoung of renown decay, etc..
more then:
The small guild, who limts it's size on purpose to maintain a guild renown bonus and only has to monitor a much smaller amount of players to ensure renown is flowing.

The exact amount of activity you put into question, just isn't fair. You don't know that there's not an equal amount of just as active players in the biggest guilds, as there is in the smaller guilds.

Less players doing X per player is one thing. But a guild isn't about the individual player, and thats all the numbers care about, is that player.

If you want to calculate things people may actually care about, then try this one Vanshilar:

If you put a ultra active small guild (say wanderlust) inside of a huge guild, them netting the exact same renown as they did before, just not gaining the bonus due to being in the big guild. Add in what the guild would of done without them along with the added renown decay, would they really be better off?

Probably not. Thats where the system fails. Even if every player in the super active small guild liked every player in the less active build guild, they simply cant be together due to unfair mechanics.

What they need to do Shade, is re-adjust the +10 account modifier applied to all guilds, as a start.

The renown bonus was put in to make guild leveling an 'even playing field'. However, with the +10 additional accounts added for decay, it has a negative effect to large guilds. I suggest they correct it but making small guild stick with the +10 (or higher), medium a +5 and large no modifier. On average, this could drop decay about 10k for large guilds, no change for small, and a slightly smaller decay change for medium.

[FastTaco]

The guild I'm in is 14 members, we run scheduled raids twice a week and run many 6 person epics, optional alt-raids, or TR/lowbie quests for the days in between and we are now after 10 months lvl 74.

Often times after a raid someone will say... meh all junk I'm taking the renown, with much agreement from everyone else. Or if there is a decent item in an end reward often times its linked with the question "Hmmm..this or renown?". In 8 months I have 2.5 million renown between my characters, about 5800 renown per day before bonuses.

I doubt that the majority of members of a large guild dedicate so much for renown. In high level small guilds each and every member is very active and dedicates alot for renown.

[Zectarash]

The reason why there is no 'super guild' is because of incentive. Turbine has not provided enough incentive in the renown system to create a super guild. If Turbine on day one of the renown system said that the first guild to get to level 100 will receive a full set of +5 tomes to each character in guild you bet the super guilds would exist. People will invariable take the route with the least resistance. Uprooting and change is not in people's general nature and since the renown system does not provide an incentive well what we have is the status quo.

Bragging rights. That's why there's guilds climbing level-wise for 100 already. I agree with another's earlier sentiment that it's because of differences in gameplay taste. If your views are diametrically opposed, you simply will not join a group of any sort with them.
Now, if one were to manage merging these guilds somehow... you would have the ultimate bragging rights for multiple reasons.

Anyway, to perform an actual census on the guild activity and account size, I think people should gather info on the amount in a more direct way to figure out the activity levels per account, just to see how many people are casual, weekend only, hardcore, etc. in each guild type: actually asking people to monitor the amount of renown they earn each day for a week per toon. Try to get at least 4 or 5 people per guild if possible.

[Tomalon]

What they need to do Shade, is re-adjust the +10 account modifier applied to all guilds, as a start.

The renown bonus was put in to make guild leveling an 'even playing field'. However, with the +10 additional accounts added for decay, it has a negative effect to large guilds. I suggest they correct it but making small guild stick with the +10 (or higher), medium a +5 and large no modifier. On average, this could drop decay about 10k for large guilds, no change for small, and a slightly smaller decay change for medium.

i think the System needs far more tweeking then this Hen. A changelike this would still not allow a guild to gain lvls. Decay need to be cut acroos the board from lvl 70 and up for large guilds by atleast 30% maybe even up to 50% IMO. Every large size guild will stall out somewhere in the mid to upper 70s low 80s. This can not be Turdines intent....atleast i hope that anyways.

[Dirac]

Shade is correct. But there are at least two separate issues. First, why should there be a small guild bonus at all? The only reason is to help small, casual guilds to progress, or they wouldn't see any guild benefits. Its effect on small, power-gaming guilds is incedental. Now, the large guilds that have more casual players, weekend warriors, etc. are encountering the same thing due to the enormous renown decay at high levels. Why should there be any guild renown decay? It is not to stop guilds from progressing, but to prevent a guild from attaining a level and never losing it if most stop playing.

Whether the small guild bonus is too large is a different question. One can argue that the small guild bonus is too high or just right. But, there is no question the guild renown decay is too large, for it is creating the same situation for more casual, larger guilds at high level, that the small guild bonus was created to eliminate for the casual, smaller guilds at low level.

[Kinerd]

Every large size guild will stall out somewhere in the mid to upper 70s low 80s.

If any large size guild had the per-member renown average that certain small size guilds have, they would already be at 100. If no large size guild can manage that level of focus, why should they be rewarded?

The only reason is to help small, casual guilds to progress, or they wouldn't see any guild benefits. ... But, there is no question the guild renown decay is too large, for it is creating the same situation for more casual, larger guilds at high level, that the small guild bonus was created to eliminate for the casual, smaller guilds at low level.

If large guilds are at high level, by definition they are seeing guild benefits. With the system the way it is, large guilds have a dramatically easier time reaching the mid guild levels, small guilds will get there in a reasonable time (which is to say less than a year), and small guilds have an advantage in terms of ceiling, which will take them years to reach. For small casual guilds, it could be a decade.

[Tomalon]

If any large size guild had the per-member renown average that certain small size guilds have, they would already be at 100. .

I tend to agree with you BUT those "certain small guilds" should be the exception not the rule, dont ya think...

[Dirac]

With the system the way it is, large guilds have a dramatically easier time reaching the mid guild levels, small guilds will get there in a reasonable time (which is to say less than a year), and small guilds have an advantage in terms of ceiling, which will take them years to reach. For small casual guilds, it could be a decade.

All true, but my point deals with progression. As with everything, people will lose interest in part of a game where they cannot progress with reasonable effort. The existence of the small guild bonus is testimony to this fact. The only justifiable reason for it to exist is so small casual guilds can progress with reasonable effort. That small power-gaming guilds use it to "win" is incidental, and I don't really have an opinion if this is wrong or right.

We now have the situation where larger guilds with a significant fraction of more casual players can no longer progress with reasonable effort. I contend this was never the intention of the guild renown decay mechanism. It is silly. Surely, the point of renown decay is so a guild can't top renown and then essentially disband, leaving just a couple people in a level 100 guild forever. There is plenty of room to keep that from happening, while still allowing guilds to progress in levels.

Guild renown decay needs to be scaled back a lot.

[jkm]

I contend this was never the intention of the guild renown decay mechanism. It is silly. Surely, the point of renown decay is so a guild can't top renown and then essentially disband, leaving just a couple people in a level 100 guild forever.

You may contend this but the formula indicates that stratification was the original goal. I mean we have a "Leaderboard" for **** sake. Why would you do that if every guild on the server would eventually make it to 100?

[eris2323]

All true, but my point deals with progression. As with everything, people will lose interest in part of a game where they cannot progress with reasonable effort. The existence of the small guild bonus is testimony to this fact. The only justifiable reason for it to exist is so small casual guilds can progress with reasonable effort. That small power-gaming guilds use it to "win" is incidental, and I don't really have an opinion if this is wrong or right.

We now have the situation where larger guilds with a significant fraction of more casual players can no longer progress with reasonable effort. I contend this was never the intention of the guild renown decay mechanism. It is silly. Surely, the point of renown decay is so a guild can't top renown and then essentially disband, leaving just a couple people in a level 100 guild forever. There is plenty of room to keep that from happening, while still allowing guilds to progress in levels.

Guild renown decay needs to be scaled back a lot.

Seems like Turbine just wants 6 person guilds, which is a shame. Bubye social fun, fast moving chatrooms, and having fun in your guild.

I don't think small guilds should get ANY bonus, personally. Why should 6 people get an incredible multiplier to renown, and 60 people don't? What makes those 6 people so special?

Failing that, make the game fun again, with large guilds. Remove or reduce guild decay.

The choice all large guilds must face: Stagnate and never grow again. Or get mean, and start removing the less active players so those who play more can be rewarded. Thanks turbine, that's wonderful. Maybe you guys should use this system in the workplace. Those devs who don't code fast enough, or make their art fast enough, will be removed and replaced with those who do, on a daily basis. You don't make your turbine-renown, you get fired.

See how ya like it then

[Gkar]

Decay needs to be reduced for larger guilds and
bonuses need to be reduced for small and medium guilds.

Once you hit Level 70 the decay for large guilds is just insane. It more about keeping even than actually
getting to the next level.

The system is broken and does need a little math love on the formulas.

I agree with this. It's lead to totally stupid things like my guild needing to start a 2nd guild for 2nd and 3rd accounts (which many old-timers had since back when you were only allowed a tiny handful of character slots). This only makes working together as a guild more difficult.

We need a large guild decay rate reduction above guild level 70, and a small/med guild bonus reduction above L70 to bring things back into balance.

The cap for renown/account/day needs be reduced DRASTICALLY to stop the use of exploits.

[Monkey_Archer]

As I see it, the renown decay system and the small guild bonuses are working just fine.

Whats broken is the way inactive accounts work.

If a percentage of players in a small guild go inactive for a couple weeks it has very little effect on the guild's renown decay. Thanks to the small guild bonuses, making up for a few players who aren't playing is extremely easy
If the same percentage of players in a large guild go inactive for a couple weeks it has a much greater effect on the guild's decay, and without the bonus it's much harder to make up for this.

The effect of this is that small guilds level at a more steady pace even if a good portion of their players take a break, while larger guilds level up fine while their players are active, but begin fighting against large amounts of decay when their players are less active. Both small and large guilds are competitive if every player is active, but large guilds suffer alot more when they're inactive.

The most simple fix for this IMO, is to just lower the threshold for when an account is considered inactive to 1 week (or less). Waiting an entire month for an account to stop generating decay is much too long, and at higher guild levels can result in over 50k renown loss just from 1 account.

In my guild we have a modified account size of 95, but really only about half of those people are active, while the other half are friends/family/old players/etc... that might just log on once a month to say hi, and run a quest or 2. And yet, we are still suffering constant renown decay for those players because of the excessive 1 month threshold.

[Lithic]

As I see it, the renown decay system and the small guild bonuses are working just fine.

Whats broken is the way inactive accounts work.

If a percentage of players in a small guild go inactive for a couple weeks it has very little effect on the guild's renown decay. Thanks to the small guild bonuses, making up for a few players who aren't playing is extremely easy
If the same percentage of players in a large guild go inactive for a couple weeks it has a much greater effect on the guild's decay, and without the bonus it's much harder to make up for this.

You are completely mistaken. Thanks to the decay formula, which is:

(Level based multiplier) x (account based multiplier)
where
Account Based Multipier= Mod#accts + 10

Players in large guilds need only overcome slightly more than their decay. In a 100 account guild, everyone must gain 1.1 times their level based multipier to stay the same level.

Players in a small guild must overcome MUCH more. in a 6 person guild (ideal for the best multipier), each person must overcome 16/6, or 2.6666 times thier level based multipier.

because of this, a player that is counted in the mod# of accounts in a small guild, yet also does not gain any renown for a period, is almost 3times as costly to a small guild as to a large guild.

You large guild people need to remember that something like 1 in 1000 small guilds are in the top 50 of their server, and yet ALL large guilds are in the top 50. This means that large guilds are FAVORED by the current system. Thanks to the favoring of large guilds, these were able to sprint ahead and get to their equilibrium point (based on average account activity) much faster than small guilds. Unfortunately the small guilds with average account activity that compares to the large guilds are still about 40 levels from their equilibrium point because they do not have the renown gaining power of 100+ accounts, and so will only reach this point in a year or more. The only small guilds on people's radar are the ones that currently are full of extremely active players. Get a large guild of 100 similar players, and you will go from 1 to 100 in a few months at most.

"But star, its hard to get 100 motivated players! we want to be 100 now!"

Suck it up. Either turn your guild into a renown gathering machine, or accept that your group of friends is not full of renown-bots and you will reach equilibrium before you hit 100. Theres no shame in hitting equilibrium before 100, and really anything past 70 is just bragging rights (unless you really need the 5% exp shrine instead of the 4%). You can't be a large group that cares about keeping less productive members around and also reach the pinnacle of the guild renown system. Similarly, you can't expect a player that plays 10 hours a month to compete with those two guys who did a TR2+ in under 3 days. And there is no reason they should be able to.
Either eat the cake, or have it. Not both.

[Dirac]

"But star, its hard to get 100 motivated players! we want to be 100 now!"

I think most of your perspective is incorrect, but I find it a bit tiresome to go through everything (most of which is already explained). Let me highlight the phrase above. You provide direct quotes here, could you link the post?

[Dirac]

You may contend this but the formula indicates that stratification was the original goal. I mean we have a "Leaderboard" for **** sake. Why would you do that if every guild on the server would eventually make it to 100?

Good question. I think the leaderboard is to view the progress of the server, and the horse race to the top. Every guild won't make it to the top. Many guilds that do won't stay there. I can't imagine that the system is designed for an active guild to fail to progress.

Why don't all these arguments apply to xp decay? Maybe casual players should just be satisfied with never progressing past level 14? Because it is silly, and people will stop playing. Renown decay is useful so people can't cap renown and sit there. Having a mechanism where you have an active guild, but cannot progress, is immensely frustrating.