Fix the small/medium guild renown bonus.

[taurean430]

Just because a small group of players, starting the 'game' on third base does not mean they are more or less dedicated vs the large that starts the 'game' at home plate.

So, let's remove the small/medium bonuses. Then 'dedication' to renown gains can/will be on even footing. That way, all guilds that are 'dedicated' to gains could advance. No more will people be able to claim more dedication in small vs large while ignoring the inherent bonus to renown.

There is no 'game'

In the case of our guild, we simply run quests and level our TR's. We run together the majority of the time, although I do pug quite a bit. The problems large guilds are experiencing have to do with an unequal ratio of players running quests/raids versus inactives. We have inactives as well, though considerably less of them. It's been pointed out that the guild bonus exists due to the fact that 5-7 members running content cannot generate the same amount of renown that a 150+ member guild can. It's really that simple. The size bonus exists to even the playing field.

Taking a look and doing a hard count of quests that I've run as a player on my visible toons versus people expressing grievance (visible toons) clearly shows that they don't run anywhere near the amount of quests that I do. And if that's an example of active players from larger guilds; the problems they are experiencing become rather clear. Even the more active visible toons only choose to run content that doesn't have much to offer by way of renown more often than anything else. If anything, it seems to me the focus of this thread should suggest moreso that renown drops be increased in those types of quests.

Moreso than anything else, after spending some time looking at quest logs this am... people who don't run content nearly as much as I do as a player have no right to complain that I generate more renown for my guild than they do. Because that's laughable.

[Kinerd]

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)

My history tells me I was using 2600 for some reason. The point stands though - at guild level 83, you're in the top 10 of every guild in DDO with roughly 67% activity. You are not a small guild. What is "wrong" with the system that will be corrected by systematically penalizing small guilds or systematically rewarding large guilds?

The system is making me choose between casual friends, and hardcore gamers.

Don't like it.

The system has a reward built in, so of course I want it. Do I want to have to kick friends from guilds because of turbines whackjob system? No, but that's what turbine is forcing large guilds to do.

Guess the same thing could be said of the shroud... who needs that greensteel right? It's just a perk. Random loot is just as good, right?

Get real. Guild buffs stack, that makes them valuable. I can understand a system to slow things down.

What I can't understand is a system that actively penalizes what I feel should be more of a social aspect of the game by segregating the population into hardcore and casual players.

It'd be better if Turbine just removed all ships, buffs and guilds. They've already basically ruined that part of the game for me.

In my opinion, of course

You can remove ships and buffs from the equation yourself - again, this is how guilds were very recently. If you really don't want to kick your friends, then you won't. You are not a machine. The mere existence of a reward does not mean you must pursue it. Obtaining a reward that is slightly less than a reward someone else gets is not a penalty.

Just because a small group of players, starting the 'game' on third base does not mean they are more or less dedicated vs the large that starts the 'game' at home plate.

It's a fact that large guilds are not as dedicated as the exceptional small guilds. Vanshilar has demonstrated this exhaustively, taking into account the renown bonus. You can try to disagree with his math, but just ignoring it makes you look blinded by bias.

[Ungood]

IF there is an issue it's that the renown decay for large guilds is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to high. Change that and no one is debating anymore.

Irony is that the +10 to guild size for renown decay hurts smaller guilds far more then it hurts larger ones.

With any guild of 10 members or less is paying double the renown decay based on earning pool then a larger guild. If the guild is 6 members, it is like 166% just from the +10. Which is why they are given a boon to start with.

So if they changed that +10 to say 10% then maybe we can start to talk about a reduction in the small guild boon.

[Beethoven]

These facts have been demonstrated through discussion of game mechanics, simulations, or analysis of empirical guild leaderboard data, and anyone who takes more than a cursory level of interest in renown should be able to reproduce these results

With all due respect, your empirical data assumes every player is in a position to contribute a meaningful amount of guild renown on daily basis. Large guilds, by their nature, have a lot that don't. Using simple numbers a level 80 guild with 100 accounts would suffer a decay of 108,416 a day. Now, let's assume all their members active and, say, produce 4,000 renown a day. 4,000*100=400,000.

However, the reality of a large guild looks more like:
20 active members who produce ~4,000 renown a day for a total of 80,000.
50 members who are somewhat active producing 1,000 renown on average a day for a total of 50,000.
30 members who are inactive and produce very little (say an average of only 500 a day) for a total of 15,000.
Come level 82 the guild would suffer 145561 renown which they cannot overcome.

Now, if the very same active members from above go ahead and do their own thing they'd only suffer a decay of 39698 at level 82; at level 99 they'd only suffer 87,326 decay. They still make 80,000 renown a day and with but 10% bonus that'd be 88,000 - enough to make slow and steady progress towards maximum level. This leaves us with following situation (which empirical data does not cover either):

* 20 active players that know full well they would be better off leaving guild and starting their own for purposes of renown.
* 80 less active player who know full well the more active parts of their guild (so exactly those players who already often go out of their way to teach more casual and newer players how to do raid and help with builds as well as gear) would be able to reach a higher guild level if it would not be for them.

As for the question is this a problem? Depends how you look at it.
You could say it is good like it is because it reserves the top guild levels for guilds that are entirely (or mostly) composed of highly active and dedicated players.
You also could say it is unfair that players who stick with a large guild, spend a significant amount of time to aid and teach players who have less time get effectively penalized by the guild renown system.

The two groups of players with the least changes to get its maximum benefit are
* casual players who just cannot play enough every day
* active players who are in guilds which also have a substantial amount of casual players.

So, exactly the kind of players who make out the majority in large guilds. Large guilds (the better ones anyway) became large because of having a large diversity of members, some very active and experienced but also quite a few that are less so. It's what made them attractive; casual (and newer) players were helped by having access to a guild that has both, players of their skill level and more active/experienced players and the more hardcore members weren't hurt by it. Now they are and there are people that just don't like it.

You can remove ships and buffs from the equation yourself - again, this is how guilds were very recently. If you really don't want to kick your friends, then you won't. You are not a machine. The mere existence of a reward does not mean you must pursue it. Obtaining a reward that is slightly less than a reward someone else gets is not a penalty.It's a fact that large guilds are not as dedicated as the exceptional small guilds.

That's the thing though. You cannot decide to just not participate in the guild renown system. You can elect to not contribute by simply not taking renown rewards, but you still cause daily decay for the guild and by that become part of the whole thing. Also, you could as easily argue every epic item should be as tedious to acquire as an Epic Spell Storing Ring because even the most marginal chance is better than no chance, and those who do not like an as excessive grind don't need to bother with epics. And even that would be exactly the same because some guild members electing to not participate in epics does not make the epic items (or drop rate) degrade for those that do. Guild renown, however, does.

I don't think it is an elegant system because it makes the fronts between casuals (and those who like to play with casuals) and true hardcores harden. It makes large guilds close the doors to new and casual players because one by one they are hitting a spot already where they can't advance, others simply separate. The end result is 16,998 small guilds of which many simply have no place to go and nowhere to turn to because our best players are either banded together in their own small guilds or busy keeping the heads of the few large guilds we have left above water.

[taurean430]

With all due respect, your empirical data assumes every player is in a position to contribute a meaningful amount of guild renown on daily basis. Large guilds, by their nature, have a lot that don't. Using simple numbers a level 80 guild with 100 accounts would suffer a decay of 108,416 a day. Now, let's assume all their members active and, say, produce 4,000 renown a day. 4,000*100=400,000.

However, the reality of a large guild looks more like:
20 active members who produce ~4,000 renown a day for a total of 80,000.
50 members who are somewhat active producing 1,000 renown on average a day for a total of 50,000.
30 members who are inactive and produce very little (say an average of only 500 a day) for a total of 15,000.
Come level 82 the guild would suffer 145561 renown which they cannot overcome.

This statement interests me and speaks to my previous points. On average, when running with my guildmates, I make around 3-5 times the 4k mark you mention. If you count my pugging, it only increases. Should one take away the additive bonus for having few members, my generation is still 2-4 times that. We run 3 hours most evenings averaged over the time I've been there. I pug whenever I feel like playing the game and my guildies are not on. I complete a lot of quests/raids in groups I join or lead. I don't choose to take renown as a completion reward in many cases instead picking useful items as end rewards. My activity vs the average player activity in a small guild many levels above ours is rather small by comparison.

Also, it seems to me that if the 4k figure is accurate, then it's no wonder there are issues. What you have then are folks who choose to run content that doesn't generate much renown. Or not run at all for whatever reason. Fact is, with that kind of renown generation, no guild should expect to be in the upper levels.

One thing that does appeal to me in this discussion is the idea of more generated renown for killing red named bosses. This would help out players who run for example epic/raid content to the exclusion of anything else. It would be better I think than further fiddling with drop rates in chests in these types of quests. The loot tables being diluted is an issue that most players find themselves in agreement on with each other.

Now, if the very same active members from above go ahead and do their own thing they'd only suffer a decay of 39698 at level 82; at level 99 they'd only suffer 87,326 decay. They still make 80,000 renown a day and with but 10% bonus that'd be 88,000 - enough to make slow and steady progress towards maximum level.

The term *only* is highly subjective. I'm sorry, but for a guild of our size 87k is a substantial amount of decay. For *only* 5-7 players to maintain against that level of daily decay is an obstacle. Even with smaller guild renown bonuses. Maintaining and progressing despite that would require changes in playstyle for a small guild. Which brings into question whether that would be enjoyable for all it's members. I'm already guardedly optimistic about hitting guild level 80 at some point. The high possibility that renown generation would become an issue for us is a concern of mine. I play to have fun, not generate renown. Just so happens that with the current more balanced system in place we as a guild can have fun playing and enjoy rewards simultaneously. Even if we lost renown levels; or found ourselves unable to maintain a high guild level due to our playstyle together, it's not something any of us would demand change over.

[Kinerd]

That's the thing though. You cannot decide to just not participate in the guild renown system. You can elect to not contribute by simply not taking renown rewards, but you still cause daily decay for the guild and by that become part of the whole thing.

The first "you" in that statement was meant as a guild-wide decision, but I can see how that was unclear. With that said, an individual can choose to remove themselves from the equation by leaving the guild. Set up a custom chat channel for everyone in the guild, and you have essentially the same functionality as that of guilds pre-update 5. The individual in question can even still receive guild buffs with ship invites.

Also, you could as easily argue every epic item should be as tedious to acquire as an Epic Spell Storing Ring because even the most marginal chance is better than no chance, and those who do not like an as excessive grind don't need to bother with epics. And even that would be exactly the same because some guild members electing to not participate in epics does not make the epic items (or drop rate) degrade for those that do. Guild renown, however, does.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this comparison. The sticking point seems to be not tedium but raw possibility, that certain guilds will literally never reach level 100. By comparison, over infinite time everyone is literally guaranteed an Epic Ring. Can you elaborate?

I don't think it is an elegant system because it makes the fronts between casuals (and those who like to play with casuals) and true hardcores harden. It makes large guilds close the doors to new and casual players because one by one they are hitting a spot already where they can't advance, others simply separate. The end result is 16,998 small guilds of which many simply have no place to go and nowhere to turn to because our best players are either banded together in their own small guilds or busy keeping the heads of the few large guilds we have left above water.

The highest level buffs are just so negligible, though. I just can't understand how people seriously feel that their friendships and relationships are legitimately challenged by the prospect of a 4% over a 3% experience shrine.

[Vanshilar]

In terms of after-bonus modified renown, yes inactive players will penalize small guilds more because of that +10.
But, in terms of actual renown tokens you need to make up for those inactive players (the part that matters) small guilds are at an advantage.

Actually it's easier for a large guild to absorb less-active players than for a small guild to absorb them, because those players will mean that the bonus actually decreases. That is, active members in a large guild only have to make up that proportion of the guild that's less active, while active members in a small guild have to make up not only the proportion of the guild that's inactive, but also, make up for the decreased renown bonus that they are causing. It's why small guilds, if they are interested in renown, have to be more careful about member activity -- while less active members only increase the renown decay for a large guild, they increase the renown decay and decrease the renown gain for a small guild. In terms of the raw number of tokens, the amount is less due to the bonus; however, in terms of how much more each member has to work, the amount ends up being more than for a large guild, because of how few members there are.

What does it matter if the large guild can get to level 70 a few months before a small guild with the same effort, if that large guild will still be capped at level 80 in 10 years?

The graph was for a large guild whose members were averaging 1.5 legendaries (or the equivalent) per day, while the small guild was averaging 2.7 legendaries per account per day, almost twice the level of renown activity. If instead both sizes of guilds had 1.5 legendaries per account per day, it would look like this:



You can see that the large guild will reach each level quite a bit earlier than the equivalent small guild, around 11 months earlier to level 80 for example. It's not just "a few months", when you consider that the guild renown system has been out for less than a year. Furthermore, the small guild has to wait for nearly two years before reaching where the large guild would've been all along -- look at the scaling on the graphs. So consider how long the renown system has been out all the way until now. If you are in a small guild, you need to wait this length of time again to match what a large guild has in renown.

Although a small guild eventually reaches a higher level than a large guild of similar renown activity, I doubt it's a strong incentive to tell a guildie "you should choose a small guild because you will get a bigger benefit if you stick around for another several years." Such long time scales will tend to fall victim to the present value, that is, that a benefit off in the future is not as important as that benefit now. People are more interested in short-term gains rather than longer-term ones because you can start enjoying it earlier and also because of uncertainty about the future. In fact, the question is usually posed the other way: What does it matter if a guild is still at level 80 after 10 years, when it can reach level 60, 70, 80 in half the time? For example, there's no guarantee that a player will still be interested in the game after two years, in which case, having higher guild levels by then is moot. Consider the alternatives for the 1500 case:

Option A: You can use level 63 and under buffs after 3 months (92 days), level 70 (large guild slot) after 4.5 months (137 days), level 80 airship after 9 months (271 days)
Option B: You can use level 63 and under buffs after 7.5 months (235 days), level 70 (large guild slot) after 11 months (335 days), level 80 airship after 1.5 years (553 days), level 85 airship after 2 years (739 days), level 93 5% exp shrine after 6 years (2192 days)

How many of you seriously consider "hmm I think getting a 5% exp shrine instead of a 4% exp shrine after six years" is an important concern when you choose between these two options, especially when you factor in the chance that you may not even be playing the game six years from now? So although a small guild will eventually reach a higher level, the time it takes to get there becomes an important factor -- for it to be considered seriously, you had better be sure you're a dedicated enough player that you'll be around that long from now to reap the benefits, and that you're willing to take worse ship buffs than if you were in a large guild in the meantime. Similarly, you had better be sure that you'll be around for at least two years to start enjoying the benefits of a level 85 airship. Any less time than this, and it is better to choose option A since all those benefits are gained earlier.

As a side note, I should say that your guild level is basically like your salary grade, i.e. it determines the amount of benefits (i.e. ship buffs) that you are getting. So just because a small guild eventually gets as much renown as a large guild after several years does not mean that that's when it pulls even with a large guild; that means that it's where the small guild starts gaining a higher salary, effectively, than the large guild -- the large guild has a large lead time in benefits that the small guild will have to stick around long enough to overcome, for it to make sense to be in a small guild renown-wise. If a large guild reaches the same equilibrium level as a small guild, then you will also have to address the huge advantages that large guilds get in leveling quickly early on compared with a small guild -- otherwise it is unfair for a small guild. Currently, the system is that in the short term, large guilds will have a huge advantage in levels; in the long term, small guilds will have a small advantage in levels. Addressing one without addressing the other is ignoring the flip side of the tradeoff -- like addressing the performance difference between a Ferrari and a Toyota without also considering the monetary cost difference.

Another issue is that for a small guild to reap those rewards, it will have to stay alive that long. Small guilds are very volatile compared with large guilds; a 100-account guild where only 1/3 of the members are active just means those members have to work harder to maintain decay; a 12-account guild where only 1/3 of the members are active is falling apart because 4 members (generally) is not enough to maintain cohesive actions like guild raids, so they are likely joining other guilds' raids or doing PUGs, which is not conducive to maintaining cohesion as a guild. Large guilds' activity may wax and wane, but unless the leader and officers all don't log on (to induct interested applicants and have some fresh blood), the guild is not in danger of existential failure from an activity point of view. For a small guild, endurance is an issue -- which ties in with the above, about the net present value.

With all due respect, your empirical data assumes every player is in a position to contribute a meaningful amount of guild renown on daily basis. Large guilds, by their nature, have a lot that don't.

Actually, my data just assumes the average contribution per account. It doesn't matter if everyone contributes the same amount, or if half of the members are contributing double and the other half are contributing nothing. Small guilds, just like large guilds, also have huge variations in how much each account contributes. As previously mentioned, I was recently overseas so unable to attend raids and thus contribute to renown for almost two weeks; I wasn't the only person that was overseas yet still considered an active account by the game and thus hurting renown. People are also busy with end-of-year stuff. In other words, small guilds also have activeness issues, just like large guilds, as well as people who prefer to be more casual.

The difference is whether or not small guilds maintain and enforce activity compared with large guilds. As I've stated previously, large guilds by and large haven't had to deal with casual players; in fact, casual players have helped the guild level up. Now that large guilds are slowing down, they are complaining about having to decide between getting a few more guild levels (when they are already at the higher levels where benefits are far and few in between) or dropping those casuals, when small guilds have either had to enforce activity ever since the renown system was introduced, or now are not anywhere close to being a top renown guild. So the small guilds that are top renown are there because they actively enforce activity; there is no such thing as a top renown small casual guild. That's why I don't find complaints about large guilds having casuals very persuasive; small guilds have had to make those decisions a long time ago, and those that decided to keep the casuals are paying for it renown-wise by being stuck in the level 40-50s or lower, while similar large guilds are complaining about being stuck in the level 70s. I also don't particularly consider it persuasive to say that large guilds "by their nature" have a lot of players that aren't active. Why? If a large guild isn't enforcing activity among its members, then it doesn't make sense to complain that small guilds who do enforce activity are doing better than large guilds, when the renown system is about high renown activity, especially at the higher levels. If the top renown large guilds are enforcing activity to the level that top renown small guilds are, then we should be seeing similar base renown per account per day amounts. But we don't. Instead, we see large guilds whose renown amounts are only good enough for level 80-86 (in the 1000-1700 base renown per account per day range) comparing themselves to small guilds who largely would be able to maintain level 100 even without a renown bonus were it not for the "+10 account" decay penalty (in the 2500-6000 range), and saying "well it's not fair that those guilds are gaining renown so fast, so we should be gaining renown just as fast" when those guilds are consistently putting in far more effort at renown.

I'll digress a bit and explain what I mean by "enforcing activity". It really just means encouraging people to get renown, which means 1) logging on often and 2) doing stuff that will get renown 3) motivating people to gain renown. The guild level will really just depend on people doing those things. There is plenty of renown in the game; during OR's push to level 50, it was getting around 7700 base renown per account per day sustained over those two weeks (i.e. had to wait for chests to go off ransack timer, etc.), with the usual caveats about some people being more active than others, meaning some members were topping 10-15k base renown per day while others were under 5k base renown per day. Yet large guilds are complaining how 1000-1700 base renown per account per day is all they can manage and how going above that to reach higher guild levels is so insurmountable. It really just comes down to motivation.

As an example (even though I've posted about this before), elite Shroud runs are not too different from normal Shroud runs (the main difference is that Arraetrikos will last a bit more than twice as long), yet people prefer to do normal Shroud over elite Shroud to save on what, 5-10 minutes on a half hour run? Yet each member in an elite Shroud run will average somewhere north of 4k base renown per run, compared with around 1k-1.5k for a normal run (due to level 20s pulling level 19 chests instead of level 17 chests), meaning that if each member of a large guild commits to doing one elite Shroud run every day and nothing else, it would already be level 100 by now with plenty of renown to spare for renown decay. Obviously doing an elite Shroud each day has some requirements (such as 3 raid-level toons) but obviously, people do things other than just elite Shroud -- as a rough measure though, you can see that it's pretty easy to get renown if a guild were actually interested in it as a guild-wide effort. If a guild is not, I think it's hard to make a case for "we can't be bothered with this, even though other guilds have put in more effort, therefore it should be made easier" which is what those complaints have boiled down to.

* 20 active players that know full well they would be better off leaving guild and starting their own for purposes of renown.
* 80 less active player who know full well the more active parts of their guild (so exactly those players who already often go out of their way to teach more casual and newer players how to do raid and help with builds as well as gear) would be able to reach a higher guild level if it would not be for them.

See above. Only if those 20 active players were going to stick around for years, and willing to put up with worse buffs in the meantime. Also, this has always been the case with organizations -- some are net contributors, while others, especially less skilled or less experienced, are net takers. This occurs regardless of if there's a renown system or not -- when I join a new company, I know full well that as a new employee I'm not contributing much and more experienced coworkers are taking time that they could otherwise be using to make money for the company to teach me. Also, I'm sure those that have worked will know of those employees that take naps or otherwise don't put in that much effort. But this also occurs with small guilds as well; I don't see how large guilds can use this as a justification for decreasing decay.

I don't think it is an elegant system because it makes the fronts between casuals (and those who like to play with casuals) and true hardcores harden. It makes large guilds close the doors to new and casual players because one by one they are hitting a spot already where they can't advance, others simply separate. The end result is 16,998 small guilds of which many simply have no place to go and nowhere to turn to because our best players are either banded together in their own small guilds or busy keeping the heads of the few large guilds we have left above water.

As with many systems, it gives better rewards to those who put more effort into it. The exception has been large guilds who can get to the mid-higher levels regardless of casuals or not -- small guilds have simply suffered by having lower guild levels if they have casuals or are a casual guild. This is why blind guild invites are so common -- many people have picked up intuitively that getting to the higher levels simply requires more bodies, regardless of their play quality. If anything, what Turbine should be addressing is the huge disparity in levels between large guilds and small guilds -- when 80% of large guilds (501 or more characters) are at a higher level (level 53 or higher) than 99% of small guilds (150 or less characters), that's indicative that large guilds still have a huge advantage in the renown system. I'm not sure how large guilds can complain of struggling to stay "above water" when most of them are already at a higher level than the vast majority of guilds.

[Mithran]

Once again, I'd like to commend Vanshilar for the precision, diplomacy and informative nature of his posts. Having said that, here's a link to jkm's Khyber Thread and its numbers:

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=321246

I think jkm has done a good job of addressing what others in this Thread have called a "problem," where that term refers to the larger guilds no longer dominating the lists.

[FastTaco]

There's nothing wrong, only a few small groups of power gamers are able to out guild level all the casual players in large guilds through sheer game-hours and real efforts to gain renown.

As shown here: http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=268181&page=11

97.2%(17611 out of 17890) of Small guilds are under level 45.
11.9%(8 out of 67) of Large guilds are under level 45.

[Yan_PL]

Copypasted from DDOwiki, inform me if that's incorrect:

The formula for renown decay is a level-based multiplier times an account-based multiplier (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier). The account-based multiplier is the Modified Guild Size + 10. The level-based multiplier can be looked up in the list below.

So, this means that every person counting towards Modified Guild Size should gain (1+(10/M))*L to counter renown decay. This actually means that per active account, large guilds have to make less renown to overcome it. In 5-player guild, each person has to get 3*LevelMultiplier daily, to keep up; whereas in 100 player guild, every player needs to get only 1.1*LevelMultiplier.
The problem is, that usually, when guild is LARGE, it doesn't consist of players with similar gaming profile. There are obviously going to be players who are 'hardcore' renown farmers, and those who are just 'casual'. Small guilds get rid of this problem by not having to bear the burden of 'casual' players decay and decrease in renown bonuses.

I actually find current system to be balanced; all I would do is to shorten inactivity/departure period to 7 days - and I think that would do the trick for major guilds.