Fix the small/medium guild renown bonus.

[emptysands]

Now that said, I think the Decay does need to be reduced for large guilds

It's a fine balancing act. "Reducing" the decay potential will just encourage island invites again.

Personally I think the Guild system is not going to satisfy everyone, it's not totally broken. There is otherwise Turbine can work on that will provide much better value overall - the new crafting system for one is going to be a shake up. I for one will prefer that they keep their best minds on that when it hits live.

[Templarion]

If a few small guilds have achieved high level that doesn't necessary mean that their bonus is too big.

It probably only means that they are very active players.

I have nothing against current bonuses/decays. It works well.

After all, the vast majority of the small guilds are all under level 50.

[Shade]

If large guilds were just as active as the small guilds, then they'd be level 100 already.

You don't know that.

Neither do I, or anyone else for a fact. It's rather arrogant to make such an incredible assumption, especially when its about a group of generally 100+ players in great guilds.

I think the fairest thing to conclude here is that:

The most active large guild in teh game, is far behind the most active small guild in the game in levels. Is that fair?

To call the most active guild by far lazy and inactive in comparison to the dozen of so guilds higher lvl then it, all of which enforce a small/medium bonus - Not at all fair.

So thats not something you get to decide.

And IMO it isn't fair to work that way. Sure some won't agree.. But ultimately, will turbine?

I mean sure, if the difference was just a few levels - who cares its all fair. But its not, its a 10-20 level split, not acceptable for those very active guilds that really are trying.

PS: Very odd to come from someone in the highest lvl small guild in the game who proudly put that in his sig and the guild openly announces there enforcement of a small guild. Or not.

[Vanshilar]

Thats NOT what I'm talking about...

I'm talking about

On Khyber..

Speaking in terms if Guild Size...

Top 10. Only 3 are l70+

Top 25 brings that number up to 4.

The system encourages small guilds and discourages people from assembling large guilds.

Sarlona: 3 of the top 5 are Small
Argo: 3 of the top 5 are Medium
Ghalanda: 1 Small in the top 5
Khyber 3 out of top 5 are Small/Medium
Cannith 4 out of 5 Small/Medium
Thelanis 3 of the top 5 small/Medium
Orien 5 out of 5 small/Medium

Ghallanda really skews the numbers there, but if you cant see the trend.....

I also see people counting the thousands of players that form their own 1 man guild.. Most of which dont even play anymore...

In other words, the complaint is that of the top 25 guilds by size (by member, i.e. by number of characters in guild), there are only 4 that are level 70 or above. That is, 4/25 = 16% of guilds that have 270 characters or more are at level 70 or above. Meanwhile, of the remaining 8705 guilds on Khyber that have less than 270 characters, there are...4 guilds that are at level 70 or above. So if you are in a large guild on Khyber, top 25 largest by character count, the guild has a 16% chance of being at level 70 or above. Meanwhile, if you're not in one of those large guilds, the guild has a 0.046% chance of being at level 70 or above (4 out of 8705). Even if some of them are inactive, unless you are saying that 8680 of those 8705 (i.e. 99.7% of those guilds) are really just fake dummy inactive guilds, you'll still have a better chance of being at level 70 or above if you were in a large guild rather than in a small one.

As I pointed out here, people tend to forget that for every large guild, there are literally hundreds of small/medium guilds. In fact this graph, plotting the number of guilds of various sizes (small = 1-150 characters, medium = 151-500 characters, large = 501-1000 characters) at various guild levels, is worth repeating:



Certainly some of the small guilds may be inactive, but unless you are making a claim that tens of thousands of guilds are actually just dead guilds (and also making the claim that every large guild is active), the conclusion is inescapable: large guilds have a huge advantage on renown, just by the sheer number of accounts. The few small guilds that are able to get into the 70s and above do so just by having large amounts of activity, in terms of renown gained per account per day. Those guilds are getting around 2500-6000 base renown per account per day (base renown = renown before any small/medium renown bonuses are considered) while the large guilds cruise to the higher levels getting around 1000-1700 base renown per account per day. In other words, the average member in those high level small guilds see the equivalent of 2.5 to 6 legendaries every day, while the average member in the high level large guild see around 1 to 1.7 legendaries every day.

One reason why large guilds are stagnating in the 70s while the small guilds that have made it to the 70s are continuing up is that each account in those small guilds are making so much renown that decay isn't as big of a factor relative to their high renown gain (decay hits small guilds harder than it hits large guilds when you look at how much each person has to contribute to overcome decay). If you're making $2000 a month, then a monthly cost (rent, food, etc.) of $1800 a month is going to hurt a lot more than if you were making $5000 a month. But those that do make that effort represent only a tiny portion of all the small guilds. I don't see the justification for claiming "hey because those guys are taking home $3200 a month, I should too even though I'm only willing to work up to $2000 a month."

The other reason is that those large guilds have simply leveled up so quickly that they're already hitting the point where the renown decay is starting to roughly match how much each account is willing to gain in renown. After all, it's at the higher levels when decay starts becoming prohibitive. Small guilds of similar renown gain per account as those large guilds would still be in the 50s or maybe low 60s, and hitting this terminal phase for those small guilds is still literally years away, while small guilds of similar guild level as those large guilds have much higher renown gain per account to make it to that level since they have much fewer accounts to gain renown with, so they are still leveling since their terminal level is much higher (due to higher gain per account). So that's why large guilds are complaining about the decay they're now experiencing, rather than small guilds: small guilds simply haven't progressed as far along yet, because large guilds have leveled so fast.

no, its not. There are more "Small and medium" guilds that have reached my level and higher, dont have to deal with the Renown Decay I do. The system is NOT equal. Whats the point of having a 100 level system if most guilds simply cannot make it to level 100?

You're absolutely right. The system is not equal. For example, let's take a level 80 guild that wants to have a net gain of 100k renown per day. The level multiplier for renown decay is 985.6. For a guild of 100 accounts, this means that they would see a decay of:

decay of 100-account, level 80 guild = 985.6 * (10 + 100) = 108416

So the 100-account guild would need to total 208416 in raw renown gain per day to net 100k renown gain per day. Split between the 100 accounts, that's 2084.16 renown per account. So each member on average needs to get about 2 legendaries per day:

base renown gain per account to net 100k gain per day, 100-account, level 80 guild: 2084.16

Now let's take the same level 80 guild that wants to have a net of 100k renown per day, but make it 20 accounts. The decay would be:

decay of 20-account, level 80 guild = 985.6 * (10 + 20) = 29568

So the guild would need to make 129568 in raw renown gain per day, for the net of 100k renown gain per day. Split between the 20 accounts, that's 6478.4 renown that each member has to gain.

But wait! you say. Small/medium guilds have that renown bonus, which makes it totally unfair! Well, for a 20-account guild, that bonus is +105.8%, meaning that every legendary is worth 2058 instead of 1000 renown. So to divide this into the renown they have to make, the base renown (i.e. before the small/medium bonus is considered) that each account has to average per day is 6478.4/(2058/1000):

base renown gain per account to net 100k gain per day, 20-account, level 80 guild: 3147.91

So in other words, each member of that small guild in this scenario has to pull over 50% more base renown as each member of the large guild just to level as fast as a 100-account large guild (at 100k net renown gain per day). So why do small guilds have to work 50% harder to level at the same rate as a large guild? It's completely unfair. And remember that this is level 80, which is supposed to be too hard to just maintain for a large guild, let alone increase in levels. At lower levels, small guilds would have to work even harder to level as fast as a large guild; for the same scenario at level 70, the small guild would have to work 77% harder than the large guild to have a 100k daily net renown gain; for level 60, it would be 108% harder (more than twice as hard). (This is why large guilds can cruise to the high levels, and why you see most of the large guilds already there: each member doesn't have to put in muc effort for the same amount of renown gain, compared with a small guild.) Yet lest you think this is purely a hypothetical situation, there are small guilds that are averaging 100k per day net renown gain even at level 80. If each member of a 100-account large guild at level 80 were making the same effort, it would be gaining over 200k net renown per day -- at level 80. Why top renown large guilds prefer to complain about the decay instead of making the same level of effort as the top renown small guilds remains a mystery.

See there. Thats where the BS starts.... It even being a "Reasonable Option" is offensive. Sorry friend that I've gamed with for 5 years. Ya just dont generate enough renown, I can do better without ya... Bye!

Small guilds have to deal with the same issues. There's nothing wrong with keeping someone around if he's not getting much renown, since renown is just one of a lot of priorities that the game provides, and there's a lot more to guildmates than just renown. However, there is something wrong with keeping someone around if he's not getting much renown and then complaining about not getting much renown and say it's the system's fault.

Not sure when or where "Level 50" came to mean anything at all....Personally, I feel Level 70 should be the breakpoint.... Significantly different numbers if you use 50 instead of 70....

It doesn't really matter what level you choose. I chose level 63 in my link above. Except at the very high levels (where there are too few guilds to do much significant statistical analysis), any level you choose, the higher the level, the greater the proportion of large guilds relative to the whole guild population. Which indicates that large guilds have it too easy right now for renown.

you can tell the people who skipped right over vansh's post.

the only thing that probably needs to be revisited is the diminishing returns on renown above a certain amount per day. having a 5 person guild generate 250k NET renown in a day is a little much.

At some point I think I'll have to start assuming that those who complain about how much decay they currently have in the 70s or 80s or how easy it is for small guilds vs large guilds does so out of willful ignorance of how the system works and an unwillingness to put in effort rather than truly trying to make the system better.

A 5-account guild generating 250k net renown a day is a little much. Then again, a 100-account guild that's pulling just as much renown per account (13513 base renown) would be getting over 13 million renown a day, which is just a little more "little much".

[Shade]

Always funny when the guy whos usese numbers to try to manipulate opinions..

Happens to be a member of the most harcore small guild and is thus expect to represent his guilds views. Hard to take the data seriuosly considering the situations im sure you understand.

Regardless of numbers tho Vanshilar,

We get that for inactive small guilds vs inactive big guilds, its mostly fair, and perhaps even the big guilds have the advantage.

What were argueing is that the most active big guilds, simply dont have a chance ot compete with the most active small guilds. And none of your data or numbers can disprove that theory in any way.

And even if it wasnt a theory..

Should not the system be balanced to how we play?
Rather then rely on regid numbers that stat X Y and Z?

Yea.. No matter how hard they try, very large active guilds witll have a few members that wont put in as much renown as the small guilds that are more easily able to enforce activity.

So they have no chance. Is that fair?

Im saying its not. Your trying to manipulate numbers to proove points that arent at stake here.

btw: Edited OP to make the alternate suggestion the main one, as it seems to be by far the most popular idea.
Kept the old one and noted its less popular.

[Vengeance777]

Always funny when the guy whos usese numbers to try to manipulate opinions..

Happens to be a member of the most harcore small guild and is thus expect to represent his guilds views. Hard to take the data seriuosly considering the situations im sure you understand.

Regardless of numbers tho Vanshilar,

We get that for inactive small guilds vs inactive big guilds, its mostly fair, and perhaps even the big guilds have the advantage.

What were argueing is that the most active big guilds, simply dont have a chance ot compete with the most active small guilds. And none of your data or numbers can disprove that theory in any way.

And even if it wasnt a theory..

Should not the system be balanced to how we play?
Rather then rely on regid numbers that stat X Y and Z?

Yea.. No matter how hard they try, very large active guilds witll have a few members that wont put in as much renown as the small guilds that are more easily able to enforce activity.

So they have no chance. Is that fair?

Im saying its not. Your trying to manipulate numbers to proove points that arent at stake here.

btw: Edited OP to make the alternate suggestion the main one, as it seems to be by far the most popular idea.
Kept the old one and noted its less popular.

Please go collect data and post it to support your argument. I'd like to see research about what you state so I can compare your independent data with what others have posted and make an informed opinion. I'd like to see information on how much renown they take in before decay so we compare what they get with what small guilds get + guild size renown bonuses and see if its an equal amount of renown for the work or not.

If an active small guild is running a lot of Epics then they should be ahead of a large guild that is running a lot of lower level quests and vise versa. If a Large guild is running a ton of Epics then they should be ahead of small guilds running a lot of low level content.

[Vanshilar]

Always funny when the guy whos usese numbers to try to manipulate opinions..

Happens to be a member of the most harcore small guild and is thus expect to represent his guilds views. Hard to take the data seriuosly considering the situations im sure you understand.

Right. And we have someone here who happens to be a member of a large guild stuck in the low 70s calling for less decay for large guilds. But that should be taken seriously, considering the situation.

What were argueing is that the most active big guilds, simply dont have a chance ot compete with the most active small guilds. And none of your data or numbers can disprove that theory in any way.

And why not? The renown bonus that small/medium guilds get is known. The renown decay formula is (mostly) known. (I should interject here that it appears that there's additional decay above level 90 beyond what my formula predicts, but I'm still looking into it.) Is it so mathematically intractable to build a model of how guilds gain renown based on the average account's daily renown gain, or to take leaderboard data at various times to determine the real-life renown gain of guilds of various sizes? Do I have to worry about someone coming in here and saying that it's wrong because I haven't taken into account all the probabilities in how character levels affect renown gain, chance of renown gain at different chests, time it takes to complete different quests for renown from end reward, etc., but that one video of someone getting renown is going to prove everything? I don't see what's so difficult to understand here. If the "most active" large guilds are unable to compete with the "most active" small guilds, it is simply because they're not the same "most active" in terms of renown gain per account per day -- which is borne out by analysis of the different actual guilds, large and small, as well as simulations based on the known renown formula. So what is the "unknown" here that prevents a proof or disproof? You can define "most active" however you want, but when it comes to renown (which is the subject at hand), what is wrong or fallible with discussing activity in terms of renown gain per account per day?

Should not the system be balanced to how we play?
Rather then rely on regid numbers that stat X Y and Z?

Yea.. No matter how hard they try, very large active guilds witll have a few members that wont put in as much renown as the small guilds that are more easily able to enforce activity.

In other words, large guilds should be allowed to have more people who don't contribute to renown compared with small guilds? Small guilds have the same issues -- but as mentioned before, those people not only increase the decay, but also decrease the renown gain that everyone else in the small guild gets. We're still dealing with guilds made up of people who have limited time and have different priorities, whether in a large or small guild. If you find a small guild that's made up of angels that can play 24 hours a day, let me know.

Your trying to manipulate numbers to proove points that arent at stake here.

I find that an interesting statement because:

1. Apparently continually saying others are "manipulating" numbers or other things absolves someone of the need to actually defend and justify his statements, or to point out anything wrong with what he disagrees with. Proof by assertion, I suppose.
2. Apparently all my numbers and analysis have been used to show that the renown system is highly advantageous for large guilds and disadvantageous for small guilds, which seems to be the subject of the OP and thus directly at stake here.

[taurean430]

Always funny when the guy whos usese numbers to try to manipulate opinions..

Happens to be a member of the most harcore small guild and is thus expect to represent his guilds views. Hard to take the data seriuosly considering the situations im sure you understand.

Regardless of numbers tho Vanshilar,

We get that for inactive small guilds vs inactive big guilds, its mostly fair, and perhaps even the big guilds have the advantage.

What were argueing is that the most active big guilds, simply dont have a chance ot compete with the most active small guilds. And none of your data or numbers can disprove that theory in any way.

And even if it wasnt a theory..

Should not the system be balanced to how we play?
Rather then rely on regid numbers that stat X Y and Z?

Yea.. No matter how hard they try, very large active guilds witll have a few members that wont put in as much renown as the small guilds that are more easily able to enforce activity.

So they have no chance. Is that fair?

Im saying its not. Your trying to manipulate numbers to proove points that arent at stake here.

btw: Edited OP to make the alternate suggestion the main one, as it seems to be by far the most popular idea.
Kept the old one and noted its less popular.

As a member of a smaller guild, (we have less than 10 active players), it's been my observation thusfar that we *all* run quests/raids. Oftentimes together and short manned. The renown we've generated has been hard won by numerous tests of player skill while running content together. We have some inactive members, but we don't boot them. We generate more than what is needed to both maintain and progress our guild renown level.

In a large guild this doesn't appear to be the case. From the folks I've spoken with in game, there are smaller groups actively running content. It seems that with less of thier base player percentage actually generating renown, and a larger amount of decay to contend with, it's no surprise that some of these guilds are struggling to advance.

What should be addressed I think is a guild the size of ours or smaller generating >250k renown daily. That's broken imo... The ratio of accounts to decay doesn't appear to be problematic.

[Vengeance777]

Can anyone confirm if theirs a renown per day soft cap? I've heard rumors that there is a soft cap that once reached by the guild Legends and Impressives stop dropping and renown is replaced by Heroics. Any truth to this.

In practice it seems to be true for me at least as I've noticed Legends and Impressives drop early when the guild starts activities for the day then mainly heroics or nada by the end of a days activities. Could just be a fluke for my groups though.. Curious if anyone else has experienced this and if there is a soft cap.

[wuliman]

i'm not one to say that peeps shouldn't get theirs....small guild, med, large it doesn't matter to me. I've been member of Ck on argo since the beginning of the guild. I know everyone in there, and play with them on a reg basis. We have quite a few members, and i gotta tell ya, this decay is killing us. We're just trying to get to 85 so we can rid ourselves of this bugged lvl 80 ship. Seems like everyday we lose about 200,000 to 250,000 renown...day after day after day. we've been stuck at 80-81 for 3 weeks now, and it's driving me crazy. I don't care if certain guilds want to raise their flags saying we're the biggest and badest, what they have doesn't affect me in the least. What affects me is the massive guild decay our guild takes on a daily basis. We are pretty active, but if something like a event comes around, or some peeps just want to take a few days off, that decay hits us even more. I would just like the decay to ease up a bit for larger guilds, thats all.

[Clay]

This renown discussion is getting exhausting!

And I am definitely suffering from Renown fatigue. I like ships... the buffs are ok... nice to have situationally but def. not required for anything.

I only want the hot tub and then I don't care anymore.

I stopped caring when; after spending the first week running Elite Amraths, Epics and so forth and when comparing notes with a guild mate who was on a TR train, got my renown butt handed to me... In what fantasy realm do the heroes gain more notoriety for opening chest than slaying the big bad dragon? Why is there no renown for COMPLETING a dungeon, and just this random chance at renown by opening a chest whether you complete or not.

It is backwards. There should be a static renown gain for every completion based on quest level, length, difficulty setting and level difference. Then, you get the chance based EXTRA in the chests/endrewards.

[Vengeance777]

i'm not one to say that peeps shouldn't get theirs....small guild, med, large it doesn't matter to me. I've been member of Ck on argo since the beginning of the guild. I know everyone in there, and play with them on a reg basis. We have quite a few members, and i gotta tell ya, this decay is killing us. We're just trying to get to 85 so we can rid ourselves of this bugged lvl 80 ship. Seems like everyday we lose about 200,000 to 250,000 renown...day after day after day. we've been stuck at 80-81 for 3 weeks now, and it's driving me crazy. I don't care if certain guilds want to raise their flags saying we're the biggest and badest, what they have doesn't affect me in the least. What affects me is the massive guild decay our guild takes on a daily basis. We are pretty active, but if something like a event comes around, or some peeps just want to take a few days off, that decay hits us even more. I would just like the decay to ease up a bit for larger guilds, thats all.

Aye the fair thing to do seems to just be remove decay from the game. If they want to keep the large and small guilds on even footing. Keep the small guild bonus and make large guild renown have a penalty for size.This way it rewards activity but doesn't punish large guilds as bad for inactive days. You would no longer have to earn 100,000 renown a day or drop a level.

Rough example and someone with math skills could come up with a way better system than I can:

1000 member guild pulling 1 legendary a day currently gets 1 million renown. But a massively huge decay. 20 member guild with 1.9x bonus pulling 1 legendary a day currently gets 58000 renown but very small decay.

Under this system a 1000 member guild would take say a 90% renown penalty so 100 a legendary instead of 1000 renown. At 1 legendary a member thats 100,000 renown a day to a 20 member guilds 58000. There is no Decay so a 1000 man guild should be able to stay close with a 20 member guild by each person playing or by very active players farming renown. In this way Guild renown measures average guild activity with no decay for bad days and events.

I stopped caring when; after spending the first week running Elite Amraths, Epics and so forth and when comparing notes with a guild mate who was on a TR train, got my renown butt handed to me... In what fantasy realm do the heroes gain more notoriety for opening chest than slaying the big bad dragon? Why is there no renown for COMPLETING a dungeon, and just this random chance at renown by opening a chest whether you complete or not.

It is backwards. There should be a static renown gain for every completion based on quest level, length, difficulty setting and level difference. Then, you get the chance based EXTRA in the chests/endrewards.

+1 this is what I thought the system was going to be when it was first implemented and what I wanted to see. I also wanted to be able to put a Velah's head trophy on the ship when your guild reached a milestone of 100 epic raids against her. This system would have been much better than chest farming one we have now. Trophies for achievements would have been great and added a lot more to the game.

[karl_k0ch]

Sounds like someone has Wanderlust envy.

Or OR envy.

[Lithic]

Always funny when the guy whos usese numbers to try to manipulate opinions..

Its funny how you always ignore the numbers that prove you completely wrong.

By your logic, loot drop rates should be changed so that the most active casual players (raid once per week) have the same epic/raid gear as the most active hardcore raiders (raid 3/day) after an equal amount of time has passed.

Now does THAT make sense?

[skunk]

I always seem cranky, wouldn't you be if you were a skunk, but seriously--

I dislike the whole airship thing. Astral Diamonds that you can't loot to upgrade ships, forcing you to spend real money, but that is another topic kinda. Some people don't have the money to toss at airships, so being in a guild with many members may help them get the +2 buffs, that they wouldn't be able to pay for in a small guild.

Making ship buffs almost mandatory for content is lame, then making it so you can lose your stuff is even worse. I have been in all types of guilds from the day i joined UO on launch, to DDO. I have played in huge guilds to small guilds, to no guilds. Its a playstyle. In large guilds you have a better chance of getting someone your level and playstyle. in small guilds you have a better shot of knowing everyone. Why is knowing more people bad? In other games i used to create a lowbie, meet people in the new zones, and play with them for as long as they were on. I would help point out things to help them, but i never dictated what they should do. I made quite a bit of friends doing that, and many joined my guild. So maybe it isn't the guilds issue. Maybe it the elitist playerbase that is the issue?

Shoe can be on either foot. Both small and large guilds have issues, but losing renown shouldn't be one of them.

Who cares if someone is losing renown every day. If you don't like it, don't play DDO. If someone wants to lose renown every day, cool beans.

You seem very cranky today.

Anyway, if someone wants to be in a guild with 1000 different accounts, that's fine. They'll just have to deal with the renown loss that comes with that kind of bloat. I happen to prefer to think of DDO as a place to run fun quests and get to know good people instead of just racing to 100 so you can "win" with your guild. My guild has stalled at 63 for a while now because of decay. That's okay. I could jump ship and join a guild that is rediculously active. Instead, I stick with the people that I've grown to really like because they're my guild. The fact that they're also a bunch of good players with steadily improving new players mixed in is also a nice bonus.

A guild with 1000 accounts that don't know each other and doesn't have any significant sense of internal community isn't going to do any of those players any good.

[Ungood]

Really long Post with very Important Data that Rips the OP's little rant apart

Well said!

I must pass around some rep before giving it to you again. So +1 Cookie

[QueenPennyThe1st]

If you hover over your guilds level number you will see:
"This is your guild's current level.
Guilds gain levels when their members collect enough guild renown trophe while adventuring. These trophy items can drop from monsters, can be discovered in treasure chests and can be found on quest end reward lists."
It then gives you the following formula:
Modified Account Size: X
( Y (active accounts) - Z (inactive accounts) + D (recent departures)
Y-Z+D = X
it then goes on to say:
Modified account size is used to determining the amount of small/medium guild renown bonus and renown decay for your guild, if any.
Recent departures are tracked for 14 days from the date of departure.

Now, while this seems to say that renown is determined by the number of accounts in a guild, i.e.
1 account = 1 human player
another factor is being ignored. The cap on a guild is 1000 toons. Now I do not pretend to know how many different equations will produce a final product of 1000, I believe we can agree that it is quite a few. So I must again ask, what sense does it make to cap a guild at 1000 toons/characters when clearly it is not going to make the bottom line i.e. profit for turbine? Discouraging account holders from buying new character slots, by limiting the number of characters in a guild is fruitless, if say 25 account holders wanted to have 40 character slots, and were all VIP's that is around $3700 in sales that are waiting to be made above and beyond monthly, quarterly or yearly fees. Increasing the number of accounts per guild only makes that number greater! Say 1000 accounts, where only 100 are VIP's and the rest purchase even 2 extra account slots in a year that is nearly $9000 more in profit not to mention the other items an average player purchases from the ddo store in content, etc.
Sorry for ranting on but I hate to see money left on the table when it is not necessary.
Okay, bottom line is, Guild renown is only a number, Kicking a dog long enough will make it dead or will make turn on you.

This is a great game, I love it, my family loves it, my guildies love it, but the bruises are starting to show, there are 432 ACTIVE ACCOUNTS in my guild, we have reached 1000 toons, we are level 59. We have NEVER sent out spam invites, we only invite people we have played with, who are of a like mind. We have a code of conduct that we all agree to and a group of Grand Officers to whom I, as Guild Leader answer to and who govern the body as a whole.

We receive requests for membership regularly, because when people play with our guild, they receive help, advise, and a generally welcoming environment.
I am proud of who we are and what we do, and I believe that our hard work should not be DEGRADED because of our numbers, but rewarded for its continued and excellent existence.

What we as a guild do for DDO is make the game fun, friendship and family oriented, and we spend our money doing that. Please stop kicking the faithful and throw our the current system, get rid of renown decay, reward the small guilds for remaining small, this too has its place in the game, but do not punish the med and large guilds for merely being large, we play the game, we spend our money and all is equal from that stand point. Although if you wanted to give us a discount on fees for being in a large guild that’s okay too. LOL

Turbine asks us to invite our friends to play the game, they will reward us with turbine points, but if I invite someone to play and cannot invite them to my guild due to member caps ......that just does not work in my book.

[Impaqt]

Any "Data" that anyone thinks they are collecting onthis is pointless.

There is no way to tell what kind of activity a guild actually has. Only what the character count is/was at the time we looked at myddo.

That means nothing.

the vast majority of "Small" guilds are completely inactive. Using those guilds to skew your numbers is laughable. How many 1 man guilds with little to no renown are there on every server? Hundreds? Thousands?

Clays point is the key one in this thread...

Renown is based on the completely wrong foundation. Basing a Guilds renown on Luck more than accomplishments makes no sense. Pulling more renown for a l5 WW Elite run Solo than a Full Group running Epic Von is flat out wrong.

Its pretty clear the Devs have all but given up on renown anyway though... so nothing really matters.

[Malithar45]

If the "most active" large guilds are unable to compete with the "most active" small guilds, it is simply because they're not the same "most active" in terms of renown gain per account per day.

In other words, large guilds should be allowed to have more people who don't contribute to renown compared with small guilds? Small guilds have the same issues -- but as mentioned before, those people not only increase the decay, but also decrease the renown gain that everyone else in the small guild gets.

This is really the heart of the argument, to me. Guilds seem broken when the Devs institute a system that rewards the guilds who won't have their buddy that plays once a week in it, or that family member who's always busy and maybe manages 15 minutes a night to just chat.

I'm a part of Helpers on Khyber and that's exactly what we've gone through over the past several months. We changed ourselves from a dumpster of the server that had something stupid like 400+ accounts within the guild, down to a fairly respectable 180-190ish now. Not everyone in the guild currently is active, myself included. Going through a job/location change atm and I've managed like 3 or 4 hours in the past two weeks. But we allow that, for the moral and, least in many people's minds, the right of the members. Why should we punish members for needing to take a break in order to maintain a positive renown gain? Sure, the members could be more active to balance out the difference, but we already have sort of a caste for that. We've got our highly active, multiple hours per day players, we've got our worker types that can get in a few hours over the course of a day, we've got the casuals that play for a few hours over the course of a few days, etc. That doesn't diminish what they bring to the table as a social guild member though, and as long as their presence is known and appreciated, they'll remain, regardless of the renown we may lose.

In a small guild, if its small to benefit from the renown bonuses, I would be more than likely removed from the guild, unless 10% of the renown I've made since being in is greater than the dead decay I'd generate over the next four weeks. That's where my issue lies. The system has created a situation in which we kick good, friendly members for the benefit of guild levels. If that wasn't in place, no one (except for the guilds approaching the 1,000 character limit) would contemplate kicking such a member that had something come up that prevents them from playing.

And that's not even touching what seems to be going back and fourth as work or earned gain. I'm sure everyone in this discussion knows of the near e-word nature of massive renown gains you can earn through a few of the turn ins. As a large guild, we miss out on MUCH of the bonus earned in this way. How about that small guild that saved up a ton, kicked members so they had 6 accounts, and did a mass turn in with a +100% pot? Yeah, enjoy that 8k Legendary Victory, *x.

I don't think they really can balance it though tbh. Early on, a large guild has a massive advantage with decay not even coming into the picture until lvl 25, and being largely meaningless until lvl 55 or so. But the decay continues to increase at such a rate that the large guilds, if they are aiming to gain guild lvls, cannot afford to have accounts that do not pull their own weight. Its not impossible to do so, I've certainly been really lucky in a day and earned 20-30k renown from lucky pulls. I've also had my fair share of really active days where I've pulled maybe 1k tops. As long as the system is based on the luck of the pulls, I don't think a balance can be stricken. Small guilds that are lucky benefit that much more, whether active or not (though most certainly will be active, if renown is their goal.) Large guilds though? The number are going to negate your luck, unless all of your members are extremely active. That's just not feasible with 180+ different people behind those pixels.

I only want the hot tub and then I don't care anymore.

I stopped caring when; after spending the first week running Elite Amraths, Epics and so forth and when comparing notes with a guild mate who was on a TR train, got my renown butt handed to me... In what fantasy realm do the heroes gain more notoriety for opening chest than slaying the big bad dragon? Why is there no renown for COMPLETING a dungeon, and just this random chance at renown by opening a chest whether you complete or not.

It is backwards. There should be a static renown gain for every completion based on quest level, length, difficulty setting and level difference. Then, you get the chance based EXTRA in the chests/endrewards.

I want the hot tub too, screw the tiny bit of extra exp from the shrines.

And Clay's got another point to it. While this doesn't really have anything to do with small or large guilds, it does factor into the amount that characters are able to earn. A highly active end game player can't even touch what a medium active TR/lvling character can earn as far as renown goes. What incentive does this bring to bother? I'm personally the guy that unless there's a tome, decent DR breaker, or an SP pot, I'll be taking the 50-150 renown. 500 and 1ks are just about auto take to me, unless there's a good tome or DR breaker. And still, I can't even touch what I could earn on a mid lvl character grinding out exp. Going to hurt even more once U9 hits and we're all taking stuff to deconstruct for crafting.

[Satinavian]

I am suggesting to increase the small guild bonus drastically. And at the same time give up the near linear scaling of decay with number of members.

This should make it possible for small guilds to acquire renown a lot faster, maybe even as fast as large guilds. And it would move the critical point, where renown gain equals decay and no more leveling is possibly more together for all guild sizes.