Remove Renown Bonus - Implement Decay

[LucidLTS]

As the leader of a small guild (necessarily small - limited to people I trust not to teach my young gamer new language) it's already darn hard to advance. We've been working hard for over half a year and we still can't buy guild potions.

If a change that "cracks down on" small guilds is given serious consideration, please also consider making it apply only to guilds over level 50 or 75 or something. Small casual guilds already work really hard to get to even the modest guild rewards.

[Gkar]

If all the characters in the larger guilds were running just as much as all the characters in the smaller guilds, then the larger guilds would be in the 90s too. The problem is not the bonus or the amount of decay, it is all the members of the large guild that only play a few hours a week and do not earn as much renown as the players in those small guilds to offset the bonus and decay.

No, that's not right.

[stille_nacht]

Right now, there are guilds with only 6 members that have reached level 90+. This is because they're getting q 300% renown bonus. There are guilds that run just as much as they do, but have more people and are lower level.

My suggestion is to remove Renown Bonus! That's right, everyone gets the same standard renown amount.

BUT larger guilds will gain a higher decay, smaller guilds will have a lower decay.

This would mean all guilds would have a harder time leveling up, but the renown cost per level could easily be cut in half! What would this change do? Smaller guilds would still have an advantage, but they won't get 4,000 Renown from a Legendary Victory.

Larger guilds want an advantage of having more people? They gain more decay. Smaller guilds can't exploit the system by merely being smaller. This way, everyone gets exactly what they work for.

i would like to ask, since when are smaller guilds "exploiting the system"? if only 6 members get to level 90, even with 300% bonus, that still is only the equivalent of 24 members working at it. I think you need to re examine your logic, i mean, wanderlust (khyber guild) has a small guild, but you can bet every one of them logs on every day... Small guilds get renown bonuses because otherwise, almost everyone would just want to join the biggest guild around.

the system does not need any change.

[t0r012]

look if the large guilds were as active as the very high level smaller guilds then they would be a higher level.

if you have an avg. 50 person guild and 1/2 only play on the weekends , another 10 are inactive, 10 more are somewhat more active playing 2 or 3 nights a week and the last 5 play every day, which seems about the standard guild distribution why should you be rewarded more than the 6 man guild that is out busting their butt playing every single night?

With the renown bonus only being a percentage on one of the fixed number rewards getting enough renown to actually level past a certain point takes forever unless you are very active. Large guilds have the opposite problems they can reach high levels quickly but loose them due to decay. want to make your "big" guild better , boot the casuals and recruit more powergamers.

[Karadon_II]

/not signed. Nothing wrong with the system as it is now.

Quite happy with my small drama-less guild of people I know in RL and we have the airship and ammeneties we deserve thus far.

[Aesop]

maybe someone can explain to me why there needs to be any decay? I haven't done much guild work personally so I don't really know. Seems illogical that the work of a guild should stop counting. Maybe if you could expend some of your renown to gain a guild benefit that would make a little sense... sorta calling in a favor as it were. This would be instead of "decay"

Aesop

[Beethoven]

look if the large guilds were as active as the very high level smaller guilds then they would be a higher level.

True. What's holding guilds back is members who are in no position to contribute more renown than they cause decay on daily average. So, in other words, players with careers, social- and/or family life which prevents them from playing every day for a significant amount of time. There always will be people who have a problem with that because it works vastly different from the everything else in the game and some will interpret it (to a degree rightly so) of being punished/prevented from ever reaching a specific in-game reward because of "having a life".

Epic gear, for instance, is not contingent of being able to run at least 4 epic raids and 6 epic quests a day, nor will you loose your eSoS if your activity ever drops. TR may take longer for a casual gamer but once you level your toon a second time you not going to loose the benefit again. Guild level is different. It requires a certain amount of questing/raiding (to maintain a gain higher than decay on daily average) and if ever something happens that causes the players activity to drop below this threshold (s)he will cause more decay than gain (thus contributing to loosing guild levels).

want to make your "big" guild better , boot the casuals and recruit more powergamers.

I wouldn't use the term "better" though. So, I drop the dude that decides to make a PMP exam and I boot my wife because she rather spends time with our son than the game and that makes a "better" guild? I'd say the definition of better really depends on what you looking for in a guild. I'd be in a guild where gaming feels like having to hold down a job, and where I know not only I but also my friends or family may face a boot if they end up not putting in enough "work hours" for a while ... you would not need to boot me. I'd be gone long before you hit that button.

Personally I am no big fan of the way they implemented decay because in some way it feels like a system making you choose between rewards and friends (or family) that are more casual gamers. The only redeeming factor - in my eyes - is that its really not important enough to make that choice hard (not to me anyway); level 65 seems to be the sweetspot. You get an airship large enough and have the most important buffs available; everything beyond really appears more about boasting rights than everything else.

[Aesop]

No, that's not right.

it isn't? How so? that is the impression I've gotten from the way the system is described

[jwdaniels]

Secondly, I would like to see a new threshold added; a way to remove VERY old accounts that will not count as Recent Departs.

Doesn't the inactive for six months threshold apply to this also, or is that just for immediate renown removal?

[bigolbear]

your propoesd system would destroy small guilds that dont play all the time.

so not signed.

[Gkar]

maybe someone can explain to me why there needs to be any decay? I haven't done much guild work personally so I don't really know. Seems illogical that the work of a guild should stop counting. Maybe if you could expend some of your renown to gain a guild benefit that would make a little sense... sorta calling in a favor as it were. This would be instead of "decay"

Aesop

It's to keep you picking up renown tokens instead of items you can sell/craft with. That's all I can think of. Turbine loves to find new grinds for everything.

[Lithic]

No, that's not right.

There is at least one huge thread about this topic, and it definitively shows that you are the incorrect one.

The formula for decay is (Level based multiplier) x (account based multiplier).

The level based multiplier is the same for any guild of the same level, and is therefore about as fair as can be.

The account based multiplier is (active accounts + 10) (found on the wiki, and given by the devs iirc, and tested by a whole bunch of people).

If you have 5 accounts, you have the decay of 15 accounts, therefore each account must overcome 300% of their own decay for the guild to be stagnant.

If you have 100 accounts, you have the decay of 110 accounts, therefore each account must overcome 110%

From these numbers, it is easy to see that the bigger the guild, the less the extra 10 accounts penalizes you.

The reason big guilds seem to be lagging behind a very few small guilds is that the big guilds are not made of the same average quality of player (quality in this context is defined as renown/day gained per account).

If a 6 person guild (400% renown) gets 5k base renown per day, they are making 120k/day.

If a 100 person guild (100% renown) is making the SAME 5k base renown per day, they are getting 500k/day.

If a large guild was made up of 100+ accounts that each pulled in as much base renown as the players in the smallest powerleveling guilds, they would have hit lvl 100 within 4 months of renown being implimented. The reason we don't yet have a lvl 100 large guild, is that it is harder to find 100 people that all play as much as the rising star small guildmembers.

Also note that only about 1% of small guilds are level 50+, and yet 95%+ of large guilds are the same level. This means that the system heavily favors LARGE guilds.

Edit: Going to add in decay for each guild as 3000 per account just so I'm not ignoring half the system in my example.

If you take guild decay at a certain level to be 3k/account, then:

6person guild each gain 5k/day, multiplied by 3 due to a 300% size bonus, they are making 120k/day. They are also losing 48k/day due to decay based on 16 total accounts, each player needing to overcome 8k renown per day. The guilds renown will increase by 72k/day, or 12k/account.

The 100 person guild each gain 5k/day base, with no size bonus, making 500k/day. They are also losing 330k/day due to decay based on 110 total accounts, with each player needing to overcome 3300 renown per day.. Their net gain is 170k/day, or 1.7k/account.

These numbers show that although the per account renown gain is much higher in a small guild, large guilds easily overcome this percieved advantage by sheer numbers if and only if all players average out to the same base renown per day. Obviously it is harder for large guilds to assemble such numbers of extreme renown farmers, but dropping decay rates for large guilds would be rewarding lower activity guilds for being big. Is that really something desireable?

[Gkar]

Edit:

Hmm...forgot the 10 phantom accounts. Ok, that makes things equal for a guild with 5, gives a SLIGHT edge to the guild with 6.

Point conceeded, thanks Star

[Lithic]

maybe someone can explain to me why there needs to be any decay? I haven't done much guild work personally so I don't really know. Seems illogical that the work of a guild should stop counting. Maybe if you could expend some of your renown to gain a guild benefit that would make a little sense... sorta calling in a favor as it were. This would be instead of "decay"

Aesop

Actually it makes perfect sense. Society has a "what have you done for me lately" attitude. If someone stops performing noteworthy deeds, they fade to obscurity. Bush use to be the brunt of latenight talkshow jokes every night. Since he stopped being president (and stopped doing anything interesting), he hardly is ever mentioned. Same effect.

[Hendrik]

It's to keep you picking up renown tokens instead of items you can sell/craft with. That's all I can think of. Turbine loves to find new grinds for everything.

In every MMO I have played, from Ultima Online to this one, that has had player housing of some sort there has been decay or maintenance to go with it.

Some you might see a monetary maintenance system and some a XP system. Both have pluses and minuses associated with them. While ours may not be perfect and may need some tweaks, I prefer it over some I have experienced. Far easier to manage an Airship vs a whole town of a dozen or more structures...

[Gkar]

In every MMO I have played, from Ultima Online to this one, that has had player housing of some sort there has been decay or maintenance to go with it.

Some you might see a monetary maintenance system and some a XP system. Both have pluses and minuses associated with them. While ours may not be perfect and may need some tweaks, I prefer it over some I have experienced. Far easier to manage an Airship vs a whole town of a dozen or more structures...

I don't consider 'other MMOs do it' any more valid a reason to do something than when someone at a workplace I'm auditing says "but we've always done it this way"

Now make the case for it without referring to other MMOs and only talking about how it makes THIS game better.

[Beethoven]

I don't consider 'other MMOs do it' any more valid a reason to do something than when someone at a workplace I'm auditing says "but we've always done it this way"

Now make the case for it without referring to other MMOs and only talking about how it makes THIS game better.

What you ultimately asking is do we need a system where the highest benefit is reserved for the most active groups of players and where small guilds have a potentially systematic benefit to large guilds?

There'd be no decay large guilds would have a big advantage compared to small guilds. Take a 100 account guild where, say, only half their members are active any given day (ie: one can't make it Tuesday because (s)he works late that day, another can't make it Wednesday because that's when his/her son has soccer practice type of deal). They still gain renown from 50 accounts every day and thus would progress faster than a 25 account guild even if all their players are active every day.

Also, without decay every guild would eventually cap. It'd act similar to TR. Powerplayers might pull of level 100 in six months while a guild of more casual players might need years. There would be nothing in the system reserved exclusively for powerplayers as every guild could reach the maximum benefit eventually (unless, of course, they stop playing).

Does it make the game better? It makes it better for some, worse for others. It does give highly active players something to achieve others won't. It makes it frustrating for others who know there is a benefit out there, but they only way they could ever achieve it is by giving up their day job/social life and search themselves new friends.

[flech]

Getting from 84 to 93 and 61 to 78 in a matter of week is really awesome, or is it ?


P.S: Devs gotta resolve/fix some game leaks...

[licho]

Bad idea.
So, some ppl like running guild just with 6 friend, they have fun, they probably spend some TP for ship, and have cool amethyses on board... does it affect my gameplay?
Totally not. So let ppl have fun, and play the way they like it.

But i signed to the idea of doing something with decay. Curently my guild stuck at lv 55, through last 2 month it nearly everyday go up one and down. Thats silly.

The nowadays system only encourges middle guild to become elythist jerks "no newbs who cant pay the price in renown".

[Strakeln]

I agree that there are serious problems with renown as it is currently implemented... there are countless stories of people getting asked to leave a guild (or outright kicked) so that the handful of players that were on 24/7 could maximize their renown collection. However, I do not think Dispel's proposed solution will properly address current problems with the renown system.

What I would recommend is a better handle on guild sizing in terms of how it is used to calculate bonus and/or decay. Currently, it's either based on character count or account count (I forget which, it doesn't matter). Instead, I suggest play time be factored into the equation. Say, something like the following:

Say there are 200 characters in a guild. 50 have not logged on in months. 50 log in twice a week for 4 hours. 50 log in daily and play 3 hours. 50 play 12 hours a day, every day.

For purposes of this exercise, a "full day" of playing equates to 6 hours or more of playing. Make the following calculations once a week.

ModGuildSize = (absent member size) + (casual member size) + (daily member size) + (addict member size)

ModGuildSize = (50 x (0/42)) + (50 x (8/42)) + (50 x (21/42)) + (50 x (84/42))
ModGuildSize = 0 + 10 + 25 + 100
ModGuildSize = 135

Now use ModGuildSize to base renown bonus and/or decay.

Now, obviously, there'd have to be some consideration for the addicts. Perhaps cap the multiplier at 1.5 so that they're not penalized for playing too much. That would cause the following:

ModGuildSize = (50 x (0/42)) + (50 x (8/42)) + (50 x (21/42)) + (50 x (63/42))
ModGuildSize = 0 + 10 + 25 + 75
ModGuildSize = 110

Adjusting the amount of time considered to be 100% of a player (42 hours a week in the above examples) will help balance the system (in the above example, 135 "seems" right, but the 2x multiplier for the addict crowd is clearly a bit steep. But when we cap the multiplier at 1.5x, we get 110 for ModGuildSize, which seems to small). So if we changed "full time" to 28 hours a week, we'd see the following:

ModGuildSize = (50 x (0/28)) + (50 x (8/28)) + (50 x (21/28)) + (50 x (42/28))
ModGuildSize = 0 + 15 + 38 + 75
ModGuildSize = 128

You'd also want to consider how to calculate time played. "Time inside quest instances" might be a better measure than just "time logged in."

The point here is that renown should not be causing guilds to break apart or kick members. It also should not excessively favor guilds of certain sizes - sure, there will always be some optimal configuration, but the gain from said configuration should be minimal.