Fix the small/medium guild renown bonus.

[Beethoven]

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.

Yes, except 50 (or 70) is not where the system stops. Large guilds have it easier in the low- and mid-levels. The high level decay has not been overcome by a /single/ large guild yet. So, looking at the total range of levels the system favors:

* mid- to high-level range: large guilds
* high- to max-level: small /and/ active guilds.

Look at the current situation (and keep in mind not /every/ small guild consists exclusively of highly active players):

* small guild with mixed members (active and casuals) usually scrape around in the low to mid-level range
* large guilds with mixed members (actives and casuals) usually reach the upper mid-levels to high levels
* small guilds consisting mostly of very active members race the levels in record time and so far are the only ones to ever reach the cap.
* large guilds consisting mostly of very active members don't seem to exist.

What leads to this is the way decay is calculated and it is not only affecting large guilds. You have a guild consisting of 10 (RL) friends of which 5 are relative casual and only play for 3-4 days a week, the five active ones may soon hit a point where they no longer can compensate for the additional decay.

Large guilds have it easier initially; let's multiply above numbers by ten: 50 active players can rack up enough renown to manage pass the low (and often mid-level range), but as the decay increases they eventually hit a spot where they get stuck too.

Now there seems to be a trend of simply claiming large guilds get what they deserve and that's the price they pay for artificially bloating their numbers. However, there are other reasons too why a guild can grow large; for example family-friendly guilds who open their ranks to RL friends and family members without consideration of their DDO-experience or how much time they can devote to gaming.

You read the release notes of the guild renown system it specifically stated the highest levels are reserved for the most determined, most active players only. I sort of get the point. There have been numerous complains about how the game as become too easy and everyone can reach everything. There is nothing special reserved for powerplayers. Apparently Turbine decided to use this system to fill that void.

I just think they choose the exact wrong thing to fill that void. The two largest issues (and my main peeves) are:

* everyone who joins a guild is subject to the system. It's not like anything else in the game (ie: epics) that is easily avoided if you don't like it and even for those who do not consider guild level important it still is somewhat frustrating to be involved in something where you are always stuck at the same level.
* it's not fun being accused of "not carrying your own weight" or alone feeling like you are actively hurting your own guild only because you are in no position to play every single day.
* it actively discourages highly active (and therefor experienced) players to "guild-up" with members of the casual crowd to help them out since now there is a definite disadvantage to it (ending up with too many casual members in -guild to compensate for the additional decay)

[Hendrik]

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.

I'm starting small in my suggestions Tom.

Eladrin likes math as 'proof' or evidence to further your/our desire for change.

Fact works on him vs gut feelings and I'm just trying to help.

Cyas in game pal!

[eris2323]

Now there seems to be a trend of simply claiming large guilds get what they deserve and that's the price they pay for artificially bloating their numbers. However, there are other reasons too why a guild can grow large; for example family-friendly guilds who open their ranks to RL friends and family members without consideration of their DDO-experience or how much time they can devote to gaming.

This is where the system failed me. I *WANT* our guild to be able to accept casual players, and friends of friends.

Not possible, our guild is big, and too high a level.

This makes me sad.

[Dirac]

This is where the system failed me. I *WANT* our guild to be able to accept casual players, and friends of friends.

Not possible, our guild is big, and too high a level.

This makes me sad.

Yep. Guild advantages/buffs are a non-negligible aspect of game play. Accepting players into your guild can negatively affect your experience in the game, simply by not playing enough. I can't imagine this is intended.

[BruxaDo71]

This is where the system failed me. I *WANT* our guild to be able to accept casual players, and friends of friends.

Not possible, our guild is big, and too high a level.

This makes me sad.

Same here. Our guild used to be a very open to invites, but we decided to make it more restrict to minimize the decay. That was not our idea when we create the guild, but sadly, this tough system make us change some things.

I don't care about small guilds leveling fast, but I care about my guild getting stuck at level 8x and about refusing casual players.

[jkm]

Yes, except 50 (or 70) is not where the system stops. Large guilds have it easier in the low- and mid-levels. The high level decay has not been overcome by a /single/ large guild yet.

So based on this, I didn't expect a single large guild to be atop the leaderboard on any server. Yet, I look and 3 out 7 servers have a large guild at the top. I also see that there are a LOT of large guilds in the top 20 DDO wide.

[Sebastrd]

Insanely long but well thought out post...

THIS

Smaller guilds of 100% active players will out-level huge guilds of 50% active players, as it should be.

[Lithic]

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.

So then what about a system where if your daily renown gain is less than your current decay, you get +1 net renown for the day regardless of size (call this the "leader didnt ragequit and disband us, so we're more famous just for existing" bonus). That way all guilds will eventually reach their renown equilibrium, but will still be progressing. Sure it might take 14million days for you to get the last few levels, but you will eventually get there.

Not fast enough? what would be? 100/day? 1k? Do you see the slippery slope yet?

Another slippery slope to watch out for is the "But my guild isn't progressing, so you should slash decay rates". Lets say today they slash decay rates so the 100 account guild with 25 piking 2nd bank accounts can eventually progress to 100. Tomorrrow, the 500 account guild with 300 low-renown accounts will want another slash so THEY can eventually get to level 100. The day after, the guy with one main account and 999 bank/favor accounts will also want to be able to reach level 100. Why is his guild less worthy of a decay slash than yours?

It would seem to me that any system with decay is not meant to allow everyone to cap out and sit there as long as they wish. The alternative is to go to a no-decay system, where reaching max level is just a matter of time your guild has existed. You exist for 2 years, you hit level 100, woot for you.

Now what about a system where decay = 0, but renown gain = total renown divided by # accounts (with renown required per level adjusted to maybe 1/10th the current). Now all guilds are on equal footing, advancing equal to thier average player activity. They can also avance to 100 eventually and stay there, regardless of their activity level. Piking accounts still hurt your guild slightly, but they don't drag you backwards. The larger the guild, the more likely they have an average growth rate due to averaging out the types of players they have. Small super-active guilds race ahead to the end just as fast as large super-active guilds. Small and large low-activity guilds also chug along towards 100, but at a much slower (and equal to each other) pace.

For any system WITHOUT decay, you expect guilds to pile up at lvl 100. What then? Is that the ideal situation? Is everyone being able to hit 100 and sit there indefinately the way we as players want it?

[Beethoven]

So based on this, I didn't expect a single large guild to be atop the leaderboard on any server. Yet, I look and 3 out 7 servers have a large guild at the top. I also see that there are a LOT of large guilds in the top 20 DDO wide.

That still means that means 4 out of 7 servers have small guilds on top. Now taken this way the distribution looks almost even between small and large guilds. However, this changes if you look at the actual guild levels. I'd define high level as 80+.

Lvl ..... Small ... Large
80+ ..... 9 ....... 5
82+ ..... 8 ....... 2
84+ ..... 5 ....... 1
85+ ..... 3 ....... 0

And the one large guild that actually broke level 82 is also the smallest of the large guilds on the list. It's because of this data I concluded that starting with level 80 the favor of the system shifts to small, active guilds.

Smaller guilds of 100% active players will out-level huge guilds of 50% active players, as it should be.

I think the point of contention is less who levels faster but rather if it is fair for a game-system to make something impossible to achieve for casual players. These topics keep coming up since guild level works entirely different than anything else in the game. Casual players can achieve the maximum character level, they can manage TR's and multiple TR's, they can achieve completionist and they can acquire the best gear in the game. All of this just takes them longer, but it is not impossible.

Now, as said, my problem isn't Turbine implemented something that's only achievable for very dedicated players. I am merely of the opinion using the guild level for it was an incredible bad idea because it takes the separation between casuals and hardcores to a new level. It's not only something reserved for active players, it is something achievable only for those active players who tolerate little to no casuals in their midst (guild). That's what I dislike about it most shortly followed by putting casual players in a spot where they feel like they actually hurting their friends/guildies (by sometimes producing less renown than they contribute).

[Kinerd]

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

They make up less than 1% of the small guilds in game.

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.

I think that the statements by developers indicate that the system is not intended for all guilds to reach 100 eventually. With that in mind, I would suggest an alteration of your phrase to "progress with reasonable effort to a certain point", which brings me to your next point:

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.

Because XP is fundamental to the game. Guild renown is a collection of slightly useful perks, and frankly taking all things in aggregate some of them are more of a detriment to efficiency than a benefit.

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

Because of the +10 to decay, the ideal theoretical size for a guild is actually 11 accounts.

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

The game was fun for a long time before guild renown was introduced, and you have only received benefits from the guild renown system. This can't be argued:

1. You had nothing.
2. Now you have something.

Same here. Our guild used to be a very open to invites, but we decided to make it more restrict to minimize the decay. That was not our idea when we create the guild, but sadly, this tough system make us change some things.

I don't care about small guilds leveling fast, but I care about my guild getting stuck at level 8x and about refusing casual players.

The system didn't hold a gun to your head. Not having a +2 Strength shrine (or whatever) isn't going to make your characters unviable. If you want to accept casual players, you will. If you want guild buffs instead, you will do that. It's your (and your guildmates') decision, period.

[Lithic]

That still means that means 4 out of 7 servers have small guilds on top. Now taken this way the distribution looks almost even between small and large guilds. However, this changes if you look at the actual guild levels. I'd define high level as 80+.

Lvl ..... Small ... Large
80+ ..... 9 ....... 5
82+ ..... 8 ....... 2
84+ ..... 5 ....... 1
85+ ..... 3 ....... 0

And the one large guild that actually broke level 82 is also the smallest of the large guilds on the list. It's because of this data I concluded that starting with level 80 the favor of the system shifts to small, active guilds.

It favors large active guilds actually. The larger the better. The more active the better. Small guilds are only favored if you assume the large guilds are full of much less active members. They are also extremely rare.

Your numbers are skewed becuase you are only taking the totals rather than dealing with proportions.

If there are 10 red apples with worms, and 3 green apples with worms, you might think that worms like red apples. But if there are 10 red apples with worms out of 10000 red apples, and 3 green apples with worms out of 30 green apples, which colour apple do you think worms REALLY like? Hint: Not small. Err I mean red.

[Junts]

It favors large active guilds actually. The larger the better. The more active the better. Small guilds are only favored if you assume the large guilds are full of much less active members. They are also extremely rare.

Your numbers are skewed becuase you are only taking the totals rather than dealing with proportions.

If there are 10 red apples with worms, and 3 green apples with worms, you might think that worms like red apples. But if there are 10 red apples with worms out of 10000 red apples, and 3 green apples with worms out of 30 green apples, which colour apple do you think worms REALLY like? Hint: Not small. Err I mean red.

It really does not. It favors guilds with a high percentage of activity overall, which is easier to attain in a small guild via peer pressure and sheer lack of volume.

[Lithic]

It really does not. It favors guilds with a high percentage of activity overall, which is easier to attain in a small guild via peer pressure and sheer lack of volume.

And your point is that large guilds need a break on decay because they are large? Should casual players get free exp and raid loot too because they can't play as much? What you are proposing in communism for guilds! OMG!

[Shade]

It really does not. It favors guilds with a high percentage of activity overall, which is easier to attain in a small guild via peer pressure and sheer lack of volume.

At least someone gets it.

That the major issue here. Imo its not only favoring them, but making it all but impossible to level very large (100+ account) guilds beyond a certain marker, where the decay starts to become very extreme.

As it's too much work to police so many players to ensure they are all super active. So there should be some slack given to these very active guilds, that may have more inactive accoutns (and by that i mean low-renon pullers, but still active in the system sense of counting towards decay) sure, but have at least as many players working hard as the small guilds do.

Thus the idea to reduce the renonwn decay for very large guilds, without changing the bonus smaller guilds get.

[Gkar]

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.

That's actually how everyone in my guild that has ever discussed renown does it. (That might have changed since crafting but that's another subject) The reality is my guild loses 143,000 renown PER DAY, and that's after we pulled everyone's second accounts into a secondary guild. Even if 2/3 of our members log in on any particular day, to just hold our ground those who log in need to earn about 2060 renown JUST TO STAY EVEN. By the time we hit L100 that would be almost 4500/day/person. There's something wrong there.

[Shade]

And your point is that large guilds need a break on decay because they are large? Should casual players get free exp and raid loot too because they can't play as much? What you are proposing in communism for guilds! OMG!

now whos comparing apples to oranges.

Guild levels barely effects xp (a few % at best). Doesn't effect loot at all. Biased unrelated complaints. They should get a break on renown to stay comptettive with small guilds, no other reason.

[Lithic]

At least someone gets it.

That the major issue here. Imo its not only favoring them, but making it all but impossible to level very large (100+ account) guilds beyond a certain marker, where the decay starts to become very extreme.

As it's too much work to police so many players to ensure they are all super active. So there should be some slack given to these very active guilds, that may have more inactive accoutns (and by that i mean low-renon pullers, but still active in the system sense of counting towards decay) sure, but have at least as many players working hard as the small guilds do.

Thus the idea to reduce the renonwn decay for very large guilds, without changing the bonus smaller guilds get.

You still haven't mentioned why large guilds without the dicipline or ability to get to the high levels deserve to do so. I don't see you advocating that people with only 1hr/week of play time should be given more raid loot, xp, plat, and large scales, and yet it is pretty much the same situation. I even vaguely remember you posting that players without the ability/time to earn epic items shouldn't be given easy epics like in the cove, and that they didn't belong in epic quest runs until they geared up. Why should large guilds with less than "epic-activity levels" get to "epic guild level 100"?

You also haven't mentioned why it is important that all guilds be able to reach level 100, since all meaningfull bonuses end just after level 70. Especially considering that a decaying system must have the intention that not all can reach and stay at the top.

[Lithic]

now whos comparing apples to oranges.

Guild levels barely effects xp (a few % at best). Doesn't effect loot at all. Biased unrelated complaints. They should get a break on renown to stay comptettive with small guilds, no other reason.

No I am comparing powergamers with tons of loot + exp, to the poor casuals with no play time who have little of either. If large guilds should get free renown (in the form of less decay) to compete with the small guilds, then why shouldn't casual players get free larges, free plat, free exp, and free epics to compete with axer?

[Kinerd]

That's actually how everyone in my guild that has ever discussed renown does it. (That might have changed since crafting but that's another subject) The reality is my guild loses 143,000 renown PER DAY, and that's after we pulled everyone's second accounts into a secondary guild. Even if 2/3 of our members log in on any particular day, to just hold our ground those who log in need to earn about 2060 renown JUST TO STAY EVEN. By the time we hit L100 that would be almost 4500/day/person. There's something wrong there.

How do you mean?

I also want to make sure I follow your numbers. 143,000 renown from x people gaining 2060 renown is 55 people, and if that's only 2/3 then your guild size is 82.5 accounts, and if you're losing 143,000 renown per day then your level modifier is 143,000 / 92.5 = 1546, so your level is roughly 86, putting you in the top 10 of all guilds in DDO. If anything, that seems like a reason to tilt the playing field in favor of the smaller guilds, especially if you're managing it with 67% activity.

[Gkar]

How do you mean?

I also want to make sure I follow your numbers. 143,000 renown from x people gaining 2060 renown is 55 people, and if that's only 2/3 then your guild size is 82.5 accounts, and if you're losing 143,000 renown per day then your level modifier is 143,000 / 92.5 = 1546, so your level is roughly 86, putting you in the top 10 of all guilds in DDO. If anything, that seems like a reason to tilt the playing field in favor of the smaller guilds, especially if you're managing it with 67% activity.

My calculator generates different results than yours.

143,000/2060 = 69.4, which would have been 104 as a guild size and 83 is the guild level (currently 82, but you take the hit based on the level above you)