Time to Remove Guild Renown Decay

[Chai]

That's just semantics.



No, you are wrong. If you have your low activity friend in the guild you will have less pressure to kick him because he will not stop you from leveling up. It will only make it take alittle bit longer if you have a full guild and would consider inviting an additional memebr to farm more renown.
But that is a non issue. I don't think 99% of the guilds out there would invite random people for the sole purpose of gaining renown. I also don't see the problem with large "noob" guilds that are able to level fast because of their size.

If your issue is that he can gain much renown from farming irestone inlet that is a different problem. It's very easy to solve.

Then its a non issue alltogether, regardless of decay. One less active person isnt hammering a guild into the ground renown-wise. If that person is your friend, keep them around. If you want to play the semantics card, theres your semantics.

On the other hand, if you are in a guild with MANY friends who dont log in but once a week, and you desire more than that, then you would have to question yourself as to why you are in that guild. Its not a matter of removing your friends at that point, its a matter of removing yourself from that equation. Removing them all may destroy the guild, but removing yourself would not, and if you are the power gamer in a guild with a buncha people who log in once in a while, then you are the odd man out, not them. Semantics? That street goes two ways.

[Calebro]

Why should a guild of 4 never have the chance to reach level 100 if a guild of 400 can?
<snip>
You should never lose what you earn in a game by simply playing the game.

You obviously don't truly understand how renown works.
The guild of 4 will actually have a MUCH easier time getting to 100 than the guild of 400 because a) their decay will be practically zero in comparison, and b) they get a HUGE bonus to renown earned.
It isn't about guild size. It's about guild activity. Those who are active level faster. The more active you are, the faster you level.
Those who are inactive (by comparison) become stagnant at a certain point, as they rightly should.

You lose nothing by playing the game. You plateau if, in a comparative sense, you do not play the game as much as the next guild.
You want to say that decay isn't fair because you earned that renown and so you think you deserve the top quality benefits, but I still have yet to see anyone answer my earlier question about whether it would be fair to those guilds that worked hard to get them. If they are working exponentially harder to attain them, but are not getting ANY benefit for doing so, would that be fair to them?
No, it wouldn't.
So why would it be fair to let you have them if you put forth one tenth of the effort?
The answer to that is simple. It wouldn't.

[Aaxeyu]

Then its a non issue alltogether, regardless of decay. One less active person isnt hammering a guild into the ground renown-wise. If you want to play the semantics card, theres your semantics. If you are in a guild with MANY friends who dont log in but once a week, and you desire more than that, then you would have to question yourself as to why you are in that guild. Its not a matter of removing your friends at that point, its a matter of removing yourself from that equation. Removing them all may destroy the guild, but removing yourself would not, and if you are the power gamer in a guild with a buncha people who log in once in a while, then you are the odd man out, not them. Semantics? That street goes two ways.

The semantics part was only whether or not you should call people who play little "inactive" or not. It doesn't really matter what you call them.
The rest of my post had nothing to do with the semantics comment.

You forgot the scenario where you are in a guild with many active and "inactive" players. In that case it's not a non issue.

[Aaxeyu]

We have already seen what happens in DDO when this is the best way to level a guild. Hilarity ensues on the forums about it as well.

And I will repeat myself, again, the main problem was, if I remember correctly, that low level characters could earn as much, if not more, renown as high level characters.

That is a separate problem. It's also very easy to solve.

[Hafeal]

There is NO pressure to boot INACTIVE players. There is a pressure to boot those who keep their account ACTIVE but do not earn renown for the guild.

Chai, you are not giving consideration to the pressure on the guild which is created indirectly. Yes, according to the Wiki, >30 days inactive accounts do not count against your decay. Assume that is true and it is WAI. Despite that, as guilds level, at guild level 50+ in particular, decay hits hard.

Large guilds, near member caps, do not have room for inactive players. They need active players just to fight renown decay, let alone advance. Every spot taken by an inactive player is a loss of someone who could contribute. Large guilds may have rules against infrequently played alts being in the guild for this reason as well as every spot is need to get your most active characters.

Medium and small guilds will limit active accounts to maintain their bonuses. This creates a dichotomy in which guilds will want to max out before they grow, as they do not want to grow. Which in turn means, that there has been an 'artificial' limit placed on guild size because guilds will NOT want to advance to the next guild size in order not to incur a loss of the bonus they receive. As a result, if they find someone they want in their guild but spots are taken by inactives, inactives lose out on those small guilds as well.

There IS pressure - all the way through the spectrum. The system is too heavily weighted to actually discourage, if not actually stop, guild growth generally, and particularly in large guilds. Doing a quick look at guild renown rankings in MyDDO, shows hard evidence that it is small to medium guilds which dominate at upper guild levels. Unfortunately, member counts do not equal active accounts, so it is hard to see the cut-off lines. Clearly though, there is a benefit to staying medium or small as the system is set-up.

[FranOhmsford]

r.e. Guilds of 1000 korthos newbies.

500 alts of lvl 4 and below
300 inactive characters
25 quick levellers
75 soloers
90 weekend warriors
10 mid lvl players trying to join groups/set up groups.

some cataegories mix of course {soloers can be quick levellers}.

I don't see how these guilds get such a bad name other than from how they recruit which comes down to personal preference.

I have created guilds for my characters on every server except Sarlona {where I first joined a friends guild to help him, then when he moved his characters on I did the same}.

I have levelled up my guilds on Cannith {34} and on Thelanis {24}

I don't like Blind Invites {I booted a guy from one of my guilds for blind inviting} but I have no problem with putting an advert up in chat or in the LFM panel {btw the last time I used the LFM panel I got a couple of nasty messages implying that this was against the rules of DDO - I reported said messages with no answer so must assume that there is nothing wrong with using the LFM in this manner} - if someone answers said ad positively then they get an invite. {spamming guild ads 24/7 is of course a different story}.
When starting a guild it is preferable I've found to allow incentives i.e. officership to new recruits - as a guild grows these incentives are less needed.

Now I have not had more than 30 active accounts in either of my guilds at any time in the past 18 months - Many newbies join the game, join a guild, then simply disappear - In my view a guild should not be punished for removing inactive accounts.
My problem with the rest of renown decay is the incredibly complicated mathematics of it. Please streamline renown decay and apply it once/week instead of every day so weekend warriors can feel that they're contributing meaningfully to the total.

[Aaxeyu]

Those who are inactive (by comparison) become stagnant at a certain point, as they rightly should.

Why should they? I don't get it. No other aspect of DDO works like this. No matter how little you play there is always some progress, except here.

[Chai]

Chai, you are not giving consideration to the pressure on the guild which is created indirectly. Yes, according to the Wiki, >30 days inactive accounts do not count against your decay. Assume that is true and it is WAI. Despite that, as guilds level, at guild level 50+ in particular, decay hits hard.

Indirect pressure? Lets stop euphamizing right there shall we? What we are talking about is players demanding a certain standard to be in the guild and removing those who dont meet that standard. The players are the ones making the decisions. Turbine (or no other MMO company for that matter) has yet to find a way to encode their game to stop players from being elitist D-bags. What we are talking about is player created demand.

Large guilds, near member caps, do not have room for inactive players. They need active players just to fight renown decay, let alone advance. Every spot taken by an inactive player is a loss of someone who could contribute.

This could also be a net loss if the player they replace the inactive with logs in once a week and doesnt play.

Large guilds may have rules against infrequently played alts being in the guild for this reason as well as every spot is need to get your most active characters.

They are uninformed. This is enforced at the ACCOUNT level, and not at the CHARACTER level.

If one player has eight toons on one guild, they affect the guild size by one. Only if all eight toons are removed does the system then modify the guild size to penalize decay for a period of time afterward.

Medium and small guilds will limit active accounts to maintain their bonuses. This creates a dichotomy in which guilds will want to max out before they grow, as they do not want to grow. Which in turn means, that there has been an 'artificial' limit placed on guild size because guilds will NOT want to advance to the next guild size in order not to incur a loss of the bonus they receive. As a result, if they find someone they want in their guild but spots are taken by inactives, inactives lose out on those small guilds as well.

There IS pressure - all the way through the spectrum. The system is too heavily weighted to actually discourage, if not actually stop, guild growth generally, and particularly in large guilds. Doing a quick look at guild renown rankings in MyDDO, shows hard evidence that it is small to medium guilds which dominate at upper guild levels. Unfortunately, member counts do not equal active accounts, so it is hard to see the cut-off lines. Clearly though, there is a benefit to staying medium or small as the system is set-up.

Hard to see the cutoff lines? Again, if you hover your mouse over the shield icon in the guild tab, its all clearly broken down for anyone in the guild who wishes to see it. Anyone wanting this information only has to pull up the guild tab and view it.

[Ldybrddrgn]

Ok all, please bere with me a momment.

Do any of you remember the DEATH PENILTY that was running a few years back?
Players litteraly stop doing certain Quests becouse of this. The death penilty was to the individual who may have been a lvl 8 toon but he or she had to go around and regain the EXP loss from a death in game that was regaining exp from lvl 7, so Why go into a quest that gave around 5k exp when if you died twice in game you lost 12k exp {not .. but you get the point}.

The same is now happening with the Guild Lvl Vs Decay rate. But its not as bad as it truely seams. Yes it takes longer to reach a certain lvl, But once that lvl is achieved you keep it .. So what if you have to work on renown say once a month to regain the decay. a lvl 63 guild close to lvl 64 can take one week a month to work renown, get to 64, keep 64 buffs ... etc ... and yes maybe have to regain a little from lvl 63 as well as 64 when going after 65 .. Is it frustrating ... HELL YES. But idoes it truely ruin the game for all the players .. NO

I dont like it anymore than the rest, but i stil play becouse i love the game.

Will Turbine get rid of the penilty ... Well they did get rid of the player death penilty. so we just have to wait and be patient.

not my best atribute.

http://twitter.com/Talodian

[Calebro]

Will Turbine get rid of the penilty ... Well they did get rid of the player death penilty. so we just have to wait and be patient.

I still want the death penalty back, with a slight alteration.
Instead of losing XP from your bar, you should lose it from the quest XP. Each death woudl incur a personal -10% to your quest XP, and not affect anyone else's XP at all. That way you can never actually lose XP that you've previously earned because of a death like you could before.
But the XP penalty taught you to become a better player, and that's something that many players are REALLY in need of right now.

[Gorbadoc]

Okay, I was originally going to argue, but I think there's a more useful bit of information to convey:

Public Service Announcement:
You CAN still be friends and run regular quests with a network of people, even if half of you quit the guild because you're unhappy about renown!

Just set up a custom chat channel. Tell everyone you like to join the channel. Then just treat that channel like it's your guild chat channel. My guild has been doing this with some other guilds for years, and it works great.

If anyone is ever unhappy with how slowly our guild is leveling or feels like they're not contributing enough, no problem! They can join another guild, but still keep up with what everyone in our guild is up to, since we all still use this channel.

~~~~~

So, to set up this channel*:
Tell EVERYONE you want to type "/join <channelname>" (but obviously replace "<channelname>" with the name you actually want for the channel). There! That's all there is to it.

To say something TO the channel, you have two options: type "/1 <message>", much the same as you would type "/trade <message>" to say something to the trade channel. OR you can right-click a chat tab, select the "Outgoing Messages" pulldown, and select "Userchat1".

To see messages FROM this channel, right-click a chat tab, select the "Incoming Messages" pulldown, and make sure "Userchat1" is checked.

So, for example, my guild has "/join TeamAwesome" in its message of the day. Anyone NOT already on the alliance chat can see that and say in guild chat, "Hey, what's this?" and get the full explanation, in case they couldn't figure it out on their own. (And, no, it's not actually called TeamAwesome; I just used that in place of our actual channel name).

*: I'm writing these instructions from memory. I know the general idea is right, but please correct me if I got any details wrong.

[kormasta]

So, let's get long term. I am a part of a guild that was formed day 1 from beta. Got the name like many others as beginners in the game. We struggled as a guild, working through the roleplay of D&D, to put together enough cash as a guild to get our cleric +1 full plate. Was way awesome how we went through those steps. It wasn't about what a +1 is versus what we have now; it was about the team coming together.

The guild ebbed and flowed over the years. Some we kicked out because we lost touch with them altogether. Some we kicked out because they moved onto other games or servers. Some left for whatever reason. But some wanted to be parts of our guild and could not be active because of RL situations. No game should have a mechanic that makes you consider pushing out a person because of their inactivity so that the people playing right now can get more benefits.

This isn't about making progression easier from the standpoint of handouts. A guild level 100 has to maintain that through constant playing or else the cool things at 100 are gone at 99, as an example. If everyone celebrates for 8 months of hard work they should be able to continue celebrating. Perhaps two of 6 members are deployed to Afghanistan, a computer crashes and someone cannot play, or someone gets married or goes to college. The mechanics of the game should not suddenly be, "Boot them out or you'll be 90 in a week."

Perhaps the game goes to level 200 and now it is harder for that same guild to get there due to lack of participation. They are already having a hard time leveling because numbers of people and lack of participation is slowing down progress. This causes a stressing situation as it is--should I keep people tagged or does it matter? In my case I would accept my challenge and welcome my friends back when they return. We don't need to exacerbate the issue by pushing a level loss decay during the slower periods.

EVERY guild has slower periods. In EverQuest, a lot of this lack of participation impacted raiding ability as you need to go through extensive flagging purposes. There were required levels, required gear, and a host of other issues. DDO presents similar challenges, but has always promoted a welcome atmosphere where even when a person is gone for a long time (I lost my computer for 14 months) they can re-enter the game and have a little ground to make up--gear and flagging. But they did not LOSE ground--the game just progressed beyond them in their absence. XP decay is literally losing ground as a result of not playing. I think the notion of challenge is there enough without it.

This is like the bank charging you money for not giving them more of your money. A lot of banks do this--but that does not make it right. A lot of banks don't do this and they are filled with gratitude for using their services. DDO does a great job of welcoming even the most casual players. Decay does not fit that mold. It is even like a credit card, whereas the use of this "bonus" cash you have available means you will dig a hole so deep you will spend 10x more than the credit limit just trying to pay it off. Is that how we need to look at decay? DDO's credit card system?

I really don't think that is the case, but then again, maybe I am wrong. Maybe decay is only for the uber elite and I should just bow down because of my unworthiness. And yes, some of the buffs are entirely game-altering. So only the elite should be ABLE to get elite gear, and I should be content with soloing in an MMO game....... Makes perfect sense.

[MatrimDaved]

I don't think your guild should lose levels it has gained.
I hope turbine decreases or eliminated guild decay. At least make it so when your guild hit a milestone level they can't lose it.

I would also like to see Guild levels increased, maybe to 150 with maybe Huge guild augment slots and slightly better ship buffs.

[kormasta]

I don't think your guild should lose levels it has gained.
I hope turbine decreases or eliminated guild decay. At least make it so when your guild hit a milestone level they can't lose it.

I would also like to see Guild levels increased, maybe to 150 with maybe Huge guild augment slots and slightly better ship buffs.

I think the guild level increase is a game mechanic Turbine has an open end for. And reducing the penalty of decay is almost like just getting a lower interest rate on that credit card. Seems like a win, but the fact is still that there is a cost to the service that still leaves you wondering if you should continue to do business with them or not. I think that is needless in a game that is so enriching.

[Hafeal]

Indirect pressure? Lets stop euphamizing right there shall we? What we are talking about is players demanding a certain standard to be in the guild and removing those who dont meet that standard. The players are the ones making the decisions. Turbine (or no other MMO company for that matter) has yet to find a way to encode their game to stop players from being elitist D-bags. What we are talking about is player created demand.

What we are talking about is player decisions based upon mechanisms given by Turbine. The current mechanism penalizes players for not participating in 1 aspect of the game - running quests. That is not a euphemism. Guilds earn their new shinies through many months play and then by misfortune to not be able to play or by choice, can have them taken away. Turbine doesn't take your name away even if you haven't played in 5 years. But they will take away your guild benefits. Hola.

They are uninformed. This is enforced at the ACCOUNT level, and not at the CHARACTER level.

If one player has eight toons on one guild, they affect the guild size by one. Only if all eight toons are removed does the system then modify the guild size to penalize decay for a period of time afterward.

As I recall, I believe there is a character size limit to guilds, I think it is 1,000. When players have upwards of between 10-20 alts, it eats space quickly. So while the ACCOUNT level may not be close to maximum, the character level can be for large guilds.

Further, if you want to retain your small or medium guild bonus, you will stop your guild growth at the account side to prevent that - and if you have an inactive account and someone who is playing wants in, you are again giving guild leaders a poor choice.

Hard to see the cutoff lines? Again, if you hover your mouse over the shield icon in the guild tab, its all clearly broken down for anyone in the guild who wishes to see it. Anyone wanting this information only has to pull up the guild tab and view it.

I can see it for my guild, not for others. I am sorry if I was not clearer in my reference to a review of guilds on MyDDO.com.

[spencer64]

Some questions...

How does renown decay make DDO a better game or experience?

What does renown decay do for you as a player?

As DDO is entertainment, does renown decay add to your entertainment value?

I would be really interested in having a DEV, or community member specialist respond to this thread, and inform us why the mechanic was thought to be needed in the first place.

[OpallNotten]

I have been watching this thread for awhile now......
I even posted in this thread but can't seem to find that post now......

Let me start by introducing myself

I am Opall, Proud Leader of <o>, from Argo

I played on alternate accounts when GR went live. I continued play on those accounts for a years time. Right before GR went live, I booted everyone from MY Guild, minus 2.
When I came back on my Main account I was a Level 1 Guild. I had 2 weeks to work on GR, then I stopped for the summer because I have more important things to do in the summers besides play this game Total time to date working on my Guild: 4 months, 2 weeks. I am at a Level 54 Guild.
I keep it at the perfect number so I get the bonus.

Why do I do that?
I want my Guild to rise above. I want to get the biggest ship with all the buffs I can hold. I am dedicated to my GR.
It has been fairly easy so far. When a Guild with 2 people can rake in 60k GR on weeknights and around 500k on weekends, tells me we are doing something right.

I have been around since 2006. I am not new to these forums by far. So I try to look at both sides of each post.
TBH, I am just seeing too much of the whole "I want this, but I don't want to work for it" attitude.


Only your leader can change how GR is worked. Only you can decide what Guild playstyle suits you. NO ONE is putting a gun to any of your heads saying do this or do that.
Why blame Turbine for your lack of dedication?

Some one asked why Turbine implemented GR the way they did.....
GR has a Leader Board....
I am thinking it was meant to be competitive?

NO ONE should be awarded a Gold Medal when really they only deserve Bronze.

Opall

[kormasta]

I played on alternate accounts when GR went live. I continued play on those accounts for a years time. Right before GR went live, I booted everyone from MY Guild, minus 2.
When I came back on my Main account I was a Level 1 Guild. I had 2 weeks to work on GR, then I stopped for the summer because I have more important things to do in the summers besides play this game Total time to date working on my Guild: 4 months, 2 weeks. I am at a Level 54 Guild.
I keep it at the perfect number so I get the bonus.

So on this statement you chose quantity of people versus a personal relationship to ensure maximum GR functionality. I don't have an issue with your decision, just that I don't think you should have had to make that choice.

I want my Guild to rise above. I want to get the biggest ship with all the buffs I can hold. I am dedicated to my GR.

Again, focus is on the levels and how best to focus on that. Still no issue, except that it shouldn't be dependent on your best friend's toon that is guild flagged but he cannot log in for two months, and thus your efforts are lost from trying to make up for their RL absence.

TBH, I am just seeing too much of the whole "I want this, but I don't want to work for it" attitude.

I would agree--I don't want handouts. I haven't "cashed in" many of the loyalty handouts I've received with the same notion. Just wanting to remove the penalty of no game play. Make it HARD to gain a level--I will do my best to aid when I can log in. But if I can log in once a week and contribute 10k max renown to my guild, only to hear that we are losing 20k a night, I feel like I might as well just disband all my toons and leave the game. That is not a good mechanic IMO.

Only your leader can change how GR is worked. Only you can decide what Guild playstyle suits you. NO ONE is putting a gun to any of your heads saying do this or do that.

Yes and no. Better buffs include game function. I am already 'penalized' by not having a larger mana pool, survivability, and overall gameplay when I need to PUG out for one reason or another. Even in highly active groups, PUG is inevitable. I am willing to accept this because I know my gameplay does not let me gear, raid, or flag accordingly. That is something I accept. But then to know that I am also impacting my GUILD by wanting to contribute but unable to make a dent, now my harm is impacting others AND me. So yes, in a sense, it is saying "If you want to function in DDO as the game is designed to support, you need to play at X level."

Much of that is on me, but now to disband from the guild I helped form 5.5+ years ago, be out of the guild that has my sister, two cousins, and several real life friends, ONLY because my lack of gameplay is harming that guild due SOLELY as a result of decay..... Boy, that is just a mechanic that does not need to be part of a game.

Why blame Turbine for your lack of dedication?

Because we all know that going to graduate school, having kids, and working is a lack of real dedication to a game. Yep. Makes perfect sense. BTW, still not blaming Turbine for anything. Just suggesting that decay is a broken and unnecessary game mechanic.

NO ONE should be awarded a Gold Medal when really they only deserve Bronze.

Absolutely. And no Olympic gold medal swim team should have their medal reduced to silver or bronze because one of the members didn't practice as much as the others, or that two weeks after the event one of them leaves. They still, in RP purposes, OBTAINED and worked their time to accomplish this level. Now that they have it, let them keep it.

Don't mind working really hard for something. Just also don't want it taken away due to future inactivity. That penalty exists in no other aspect or element of the game. None. Just in a guild leveling system. And the rest of the game I think functions pretty well. This could too.

[spencer64]

I even posted in this thread but can't seem to find that post now......

Why blame Turbine for your lack of dedication?

NO ONE should be awarded a Gold Medal when really they only deserve Bronze.

Most likely you cannot see it because your post(s) insinuates you are better than everyone else which is not particularly helpful to the overall conversation, and could be seen as trolling.

[Gorbadoc]

Most likely you cannot see it because your post(s) insinuates you are better than everyone else which is not particularly helpful to the overall conversation, and could be seen as trolling.

Goodness, this thread has taken a nasty turn.

The OP had a legitimate concern with guild renown decay: He saw, first hand, his DDO social network fracturing.

Calebro, Opall, and others have raised an equally legitimate concern: Guild level is supposed to reflect how actively a guild's members play, NOT how many years have elapsed since they started collecting renown.

I'm seeing a lot of people attack the second concern, suggesting that it's somehow not legitimate. Please think carefully about what you're saying. There are two conflicting concerns here. Dealing with renown problems requires acknowledging both.

Some questions...

How does renown decay make DDO a better game or experience?

What does renown decay do for you as a player?

As DDO is entertainment, does renown decay add to your entertainment value?

I would be really interested in having a DEV, or community member specialist respond to this thread, and inform us why the mechanic was thought to be needed in the first place.

1) There's some level where a guild's rate of renown gain equals its rate of renown decay. A guild's level will stabilize at this value. Hence, thanks to renown decay, guild level is an indicator of how active a guild has tended to be over the last few months. If you remove the decay, then a high guild level might mean that a guild is active, or it might mean that a guild has just been around for a long time.

2) For me as a player, renown decay ensures that my guild level reflects the level of activity in my guild. Also, I find it's kind of fun to congratulate ourselves whenever we gain a new level. Granted, recently, it's been the same level over and over, as our equilibrium point seems to be between the decay rate for two different levels. I'll gladly concede that this would NOT be fun if people were actually getting stressed over guild renown; that would be obnoxious.

3) Yes, renown decay adds to entertainment value. It makes my guild level a minor point of pride. Like, "Hey, we enjoy playing the game together, and we do it enough that the game has seen fit to give us a fancypants airship". If renown decay were removed, then there would be no sense of group achievement in the size of our airship. It would just be, "Oh, we've been at this long enough that we collected all the prizes. Hurray for being a couple years older?"