Guild Leveling - Renown Gain/Decay

[Demaril]

id love to see an option for accounts to be opted in our out of renown change, that being if you've got people who don't have the time to be gaining renown they opt out, if they earn renown its wasted but they also don't cause any decay. Have a time limit on how often you can opt in/out to prevent abuse of the system. That allows people to have friends and favour farmers in the same guild regardless of the guilds goals

[Alrik_Fassbauer]

There is decay ???

Interesting. Every day I learn something new ...

[shores11]

id love to see an option for accounts to be opted in our out of renown change, that being if you've got people who don't have the time to be gaining renown they opt out, if they earn renown its wasted but they also don't cause any decay. Have a time limit on how often you can opt in/out to prevent abuse of the system. That allows people to have friends and favour farmers in the same guild regardless of the guilds goals

/not signed

This is a really bad idea if they were in a guild that cared about renown and gaining levels. If they don't care about renown they could form their own guild and/or join a guild that doesn'r care about renown. This way they could have the community of a guild like before the renown system was in place. However giving them the opt out function in a guild that is striving for really high levels is like piking in a quest.

[DocBenway]

My guild has been keeping an eye on our guild loss to inform other members what to expect per day, and we've found that our loss is 33% more than DDOwiki tables on renown loss state. We've put in a ticket but they said its not their area, so we have put in at least 3 bug reports.

Based on the wiki formula, with our 5 current active accounts, level 44, we should see daily loss of 767 renown. We actually have been losing 1020 daily. The wiki formula says we should lose 75% of what we actually lose.

(LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier) = 51.110400 * 15 = 766.656.

[shores11]

Based on the wiki formula, with our 5 current active accounts, level 44, we should see daily loss of 767 renown. We actually have been losing 1020 daily. The wiki formula says we should lose 75% of what we actually lose.

(LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier) = 51.110400 * 15 = 766.656.

I am not sure about the forumla you posted but the following is the formula I have referenced and it seems pretty accurate.

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. I have the level-based multiplier also posted on my website

Your missing the +10 to your equasion. The plus 10 is added to your modified guild size not your active accounts.

This is how I have been calculating it for Legends:

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 seen in the list in the above post.

> 02/19/12 - (GL-67) 473.7 * (MGS 49+10) 59 = [(GD) 27,948 / (AC) 48] = (APD) 582.3
> 02/02/12 - (GL-68) 495.2 * (MGS 57+10) 67 = [(GD) 33,178 / (AC) 58] = (APD) 572.0
> 01/06/12 - (GL-68) 495.2 * (MGS 61+10) 71 = [(GD) 35,159 / (AC) 67] = (APD) 524.7
> 12/03/11 - (GL-67) 473.7 * (MGS 62+10) 72 = [(GD) 34,106 / (AC) 65] = (APD) 524.7
> 11/13/11 - (GL-67) 473.7 * (MGS 67+10) 77 = [(GD) 36,475 / (AC) 69] = (APD) 528.6
> 10/29/11 - (GL-67) 473.7 * (MGS 69+10) 79 = [(GD) 37,422 / (AC) 72] = (APD) 519.7
> 10/03/11 - (GL-67) 473.7 * (MGS 78+10) 88 = [(GD) 41,685 / (AC) 84] = (APD) 496.2
> 09/25/11 - (GL-66) 452.8 * (MGS 78+10) 88 = [(GD) 39,846 / (AC) 88] = (APD) 452.7
> 09/17/11 - (GL-66) 452.8 * (MGS 78+10) 88 = [(GD) 39,846 / (AC) 88] = (APD) 452.7

Key:
GL = Guild Level
MGS = Modified Guild Size
GD = Guild Decay per Day
AC = Active Accounts
APD = Average Player Decay per Day

[DocBenway]

Modified Guild Size = 5, or 5 active (as in they have been played in the last month) accounts. The 15 I used was that 5 + 10.

(Modified Account Size: 5 (21 Active Accounts -16 Inactive Accounts + 0 Recent Departures) -- Quoted straight from the guild tab.

[shores11]

Modified Guild Size = 5, or 5 active (as in they have been played in the last month) accounts. The 15 I used was that 5 + 10.

(Modified Account Size: 5 (21 Active Accounts -16 Inactive Accounts + 0 Recent Departures) -- Quoted straight from the guild tab.

If 5 is your modified guild size then there may be an issue however in your original post you said active accounts.

[DocBenway]

Yes, the terminology is screwy, since the game uses Active Accounts instead of Total Accounts. When I say Active account, I mean accounts not considered Inactive, that have been played in the last month. So, to me, the number of "active" accounts = Modified Account Size.

I guess I should have posted:
(LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier) = 51.110400 * (5+10) = 766.656.

[shores11]

Yes, the terminology is screwy, since the game uses Active Accounts instead of Total Accounts. When I say Active account, I mean accounts not considered Inactive, that have been played in the last month. So, to me, the number of "active" accounts = Modified Account Size.

I guess I should have posted:
(LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier) = 51.110400 * (5+10) = 766.656.

Well no active accounts and modified accounts is completely a different thing.

Modified Guild Accounts are: Account Accounts - Inactive Accounts + Number of Recent Departures.

So yes if you have 21 active accounts with 16 inactive accounts and NO recent departures then your modifeid guild account = 5. But if you have any recent departures you need to add them to your final equasion.

However I wish I only had to worry about a total of 797 total renown decay per day we almost lose that per day per account.

[DocBenway]

Well no active accounts and modified accounts is completely a different thing.

Modified Guild Accounts are: Account Accounts - Inactive Accounts + Number of Recent Departures.

So yes if you have 21 active accounts with 16 inactive accounts and NO recent departures then your modifeid guild account = 5. But if you have any recent departures you need to add them to your final equasion.

However I wish I only had to worry about a total of 797 total renown decay per day.

It's pretty much semantics. I mean we have 21 Total accounts, 16 are Inactive, so 5 are Active. 0 recent departures, have never had any departures since renown was introduced. Wiki math says this is 767 loss daily, we lose 1020.

The amount we are actually losing daily plugs into the math as though we have a modified size of 10, rather than 5.

[Psiandron]

This is the bottom line there was a major push by many players to make the guild into more of a partnership with the whole usurping policy's remember. A player also contributes to the guild a rogue guild leader should not be able to all by themselves jeapordize a guild by going AFK from the game, etc... Well in that same light it works both ways if a player wants to be in a guild that is seeking to be level 65 and over when the decay starts to get serious then they must also be able to contribute.

You know, I really have mixed feelings about all that. The guild is very arguably a personal possession of the person who started it, i.e. paid for the charter. Yeah, I know, it's only like a buck fifty (ofc, they could have also shelled out for an airship which is a lot more RL cash), but that isn't really relevent, the point is that he's the one who paid for it and started it.

People have been arguing from the point of view that by investing time and energy into it they deserve to be able to take possession of a guild. A big part of me thinks that maybe they just ought to go start their own and leave the original guild and its owner to their own devices. They can even take membership with them if they can recruit them successfully for all I care.

2 - You are correct although my guild was large and it was our goal to try and maintain a membership of around 100 active members we never recruited by spamming in members. All of our members are either real life family/friends or we vetted them by running with them 3 or more times in a quest and require all members to complete an application on the Legends website.

Nice system, sounds as if you guys should be able to make great and steady progress up the guild-level ladder.

A large guild with all or nearly all members active in gathering renown will never have any reason to even concern themselves with renown decay. However we all know that the major problem a large guild has is that they will have a larger percentage of membership inactive or not active enough to gather in their wieght in renown. It is for this reason we have over time now culled our membership down to a medium size guild.

This sounds like a fairly organic and sensible development that would take place over time. It should leave the guild with a much firmer and stronger base.

I do like the idea of at the very least when a member account goes inactive that the guild leader can determine in game which account that is by highlighting the characters that player has tied to that inactive account. This as a minimum is essential for a guild leader to be able to manage his/her guilds direction especially at high level.[/COLOR]

I do think that it would be nice for everyone to be able to see whose alts are whose. An additional column which listed the owner on the guild page would be a great and fairly simple addition to the game.

[shores11]

Thank you for your post see some of my comments below.

You know, I really have mixed feelings about all that. The guild is very arguably a personal possession of the person who started it, i.e. paid for the charter. Yeah, I know, it's only like a buck fifty (ofc, they could have also shelled out for an airship which is a lot more RL cash), but that isn't really relevent, the point is that he's the one who paid for it and started it.

People have been arguing from the point of view that by investing time and energy into it they deserve to be able to take possession of a guild. A big part of me thinks that maybe they just ought to go start their own and leave the original guild and its owner to their own devices. They can even take membership with them if they can recruit them successfully for all I care.

> I agree with you 100% and was very much against the new usurping rule that was launched by DDO. They did it however in response to the population that was crying foul about the time they invested in the guild. Don't mind the RL$ I as the guild leader have spent on astral diamonds for new ships, RL$ on ventrilo & RL$ on our guild website. I pay on average an extra RL$ of about $200 per year and am happy to do so. So the though if I had to leave the game on a business trip for a month or so and to come home to have MY guild taken from me, ouch. I cry foul...

This sounds like a fairly organic and sensible development that would take place over time. It should leave the guild with a much firmer and stronger base.

> I agree the guild will be firmer with more active players but in order to advance it has removed the casual player from the equasion. Some part time players are good people that you don't want to part ways with now they have to move to a guild that may not ever get to far above level 20 or so.

I do think that it would be nice for everyone to be able to see whose alts are whose. An additional column which listed the owner on the guild page would be a great and fairly simple addition to the game.

> I obviously agree with this and really think it is essential but we must have at a minimum the guild leader's ability to see who is inactive or not by the standards within the guild renown decay forumula (14-days).