Developer's question on renown

[Captain_Wizbang]

As we have had MANY threads about removing the decay system. Or at least changing it.

Is there a plan in the expansion to address this issue?

[madmaxhunter]

/signed

A "LET'S TALK: Guilds" thread.

[Zyerz]

I've read a lot about the upcoming expansion and updates... Nothing has been mentioned. Dunno, maybe someone knows....

If you have decay, remove players that havent been active recently. No need to keep people that have been MIA for 8 months. Imo.

[Hafeal]

You forgot to put a "Let's Talk" in your title ... now there is no chance for a response.

[Monkey-Boy]

I've read a lot about the upcoming expansion and updates... Nothing has been mentioned. Dunno, maybe someone knows....

If you have decay, remove players that havent been active recently. No need to keep people that have been MIA for 8 months. Imo.

Inactive players don't affect decay right now.

But something ain't right with the formulas.

[madmaxhunter]

I've read a lot about the upcoming expansion and updates... Nothing has been mentioned. Dunno, maybe someone knows....

If you have decay, remove players that havent been active recently. No need to keep people that have been MIA for 8 months. Imo.

How does that help anything? 1 month + inactive members don't count for decay or guild size, dismissing a player that hasn't played for 8 months is just giving you 2 weeks worth of recent departure decay.

(Edit: ninja'd)

[MysticElaine]

I've read a lot about the upcoming expansion and updates... Nothing has been mentioned. Dunno, maybe someone knows....

If you have decay, remove players that havent been active recently. No need to keep people that have been MIA for 8 months. Imo.

On top of what monkey and madmax said, you also then lose a percentage of the renown they got you if you boot them, and if it was quite a bit when they played, you really don't want to do that

[Kinerd]

As we have had MANY threads about removing the decay system. Or at least changing it.

Is there a plan in the expansion to address this issue?

A lot of those threads have been pretty argumentative, indicating a lack of consensus in the player base as a whole.

For instance, I don't think the decay system is a big problem. This does not make your complaints any less valid for you, but it absolutely makes your complaints less representative of the player base as a whole.

Combine a lack of public mandate with Turbine's well-documented reticence to tinker with old content, and I think you will be better off resigning yourself to the situation.

[Xynot2]

Restructure the decay altogether. But wether or not Billy has been gone at boot camp for 3 months or Sally has been in hospital for bypass or brain surgery and to avoid decay you had to boot them. (FYI- it's not the inactives... it's how many accounts are in total) http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown So basically, if you have more than 50 accounts in your guild, you're gonna suffer. Which is SO wrong. Plus, there should be a limit on how many accounts can be in one guild. Seriously. Get rid of the loss of renown for leaving/booting.

I think a simpler solution would be no decay and more renown needed to level so that if you have 100 people farming the highest renown for 8hrs a day, it would still take a year to get to 100.

[Captain_Wizbang]

A lot of those threads have been pretty argumentative, indicating a lack of consensus in the player base as a whole.

For instance, I don't think the decay system is a big problem. This does not make your complaints any less valid for you, but it absolutely makes your complaints less representative of the player base as a whole.

Combine a lack of public mandate with Turbine's well-documented reticence to tinker with old content, and I think you will be better off resigning yourself to the situation.

So, are you, the new voice of reason on the forums? I think NOT!

You are so wrong, there has been MANY threads and posts about the entire system.

[Rumbaar]

A lot of those threads have been pretty argumentative, indicating a lack of consensus in the player base as a whole.

Find me one thread where someone says guild renown decay is currently 100% find and working well within the system!

[Kinerd]

So, are you, the new voice of reason on the forums? I think NOT!

I do not claim to be any voice but my own. Do you?

You are so wrong, there has been MANY threads and posts about the entire system.

I said that the threads were argumentative. I did not say they did not exist, that would be a manifest contradiction.

Find me one thread where someone says guild renown decay is currently 100% find and working well within the system!

As I said, I don't think it's a big problem. I would not say it's 100% fine, but I would be hard-pressed to cite any DDO system that was.

I really think the biggest problem with the guild renown system is how vaguely so many people understand the math behind it. You can find any number of people who are absolutely convinced that large guilds are disadvantaged by it, for instance.

[CanuckWisdom]

I find it backwards that removing players from my guild that have been inactive for months and contribute nothing, effectively raises the number of members in my guild for two weeks....

uh, what?

[Rumbaar]

I really think the biggest problem with the guild renown system is how vaguely so many people understand the math behind it. You can find any number of people who are absolutely convinced that large guilds are disadvantaged by it, for instance.

They are over a small dedicated guild. I'm sure it's easier to find 6 dedicated and focused people, than say 100.

[Gorbadoc]

I've read a lot about the upcoming expansion and updates... Nothing has been mentioned. Dunno, maybe someone knows....

If you have decay, remove players that havent been active recently. No need to keep people that have been MIA for 8 months. Imo.

We have a lot of complaining threads, but a lot of the actual posts on the topic are like this: Completely ignorant of how renown decay actually works.

I don't mean that as an insult. I want people to play the game, not spend time studying and simulating how the renown calculations work. Unfortunately, if you haven't slogged through a bunch of math and formulas, the decay system tends to sound worse than it is.

That's a problem, because the people who do only half-understand the system sometimes make unnecessary drama. In this example, there's the drama of having to kick a friend who might just be taking a six-month break from the game. As a matter of fact, you should NOT kick long-time idle players for decay reasons. If it's been over a month since they last logged on, they aren't contributing to your guild's renown decay. They WILL contribute to decay, though, for a couple weeks after you kick them, and that's in addition to the accrued renown that walks out the door with them.

So, just to recap:
Renown decay has been shown to create bad drama at times. At least some of this bad drama would be avoided if people just understood the system better, or if they just didn't worry about renown at all.

If I were the devs, the first solution I would attempt would be a public awareness campaign.

[Kinerd]

They are over a small dedicated guild. I'm sure it's easier to find 6 dedicated and focused people, than say 100.

No offense, but this is kind of what I mean. A large guild gets an enormous leveling advantage just by being large: dedicated, casual, or otherwise. The example I always trot out is Chaosknights: it cannot be argued that they gain more renown per person than my guild, yet they beat us by over a year to guild level 70. They've reached their stagnation point and we'll probably catch them in a few months... that's their big disadvantage? After having the good buffs for a year when we didn't, we'll edge out their guild level # two years after the system was implemented, and get what? Seriously, can you tell me what we get for having a higher #?

Perhaps the word "disadvantage" does not mean what I think it means.

[porq]

So, are you, the new voice of reason on the forums? I think NOT!

You are so wrong, there has been MANY threads and posts about the entire system.

Those were from people unhappy with the decay system. There's probably countless people out there who are more or less content with it and haven't felt compelled to make threads about it. I count myself in that crowd.

I don't see the reasoning behind removing decay. I don't see a whole lot of guilds in the 70+ range either, but there's little benefit to pushing levels that high other than minor conveniences and brag rights. All of the important buffs are earned before then.

I find it backwards that removing players from my guild that have been inactive for months and contribute nothing, effectively raises the number of members in my guild for two weeks....

uh, what?

That change was to combat the spam guilds that would invite everyone, then boot inactives to make room for more active renown gatherers.

[Rumbaar]

No offense, but this is kind of what I mean. A large guild gets an enormous leveling advantage just by being large: dedicated, casual, or otherwise.

*snip*

Start a guild now, with 6 accounts and another with 50.

Which one will get to L70 first and beyond?

But yes once you get to 70, there isn't much more that is needed.

[Captain_Wizbang]

The thread is for the devs to respond to, not for us to debate.

The system needs an overhaul. period, i just want some kind of answer, no matter what it is, from the devs.

Thanks people. (my comments towards other players are made in fun, and not meant as a dig)

[redspecter23]

I think part of the issue I have with the "soft caps" we have now with guild levels is that it's hard to get excited about renown in any form once you hit that cap. For instance, the event going on right now seems pointless to me personally. Extra renown seems great at first glance, but the natural soft cap just takes any bonuses away eventually anyway. It's why I don't use guild renown pots. Unless you chug them constantly, they're good for a quick burst and nothing more. Assuming no other outside factors, the natural guild level balance will remove any short term advancement over time.

Another related problem is that it's human nature to want to advance to that next shiny goal. When you get to the guild renown balance point, your options for advancement become very negative in nature. Removing casual players or streamlining the guild roster in other ways become factors in advancing the guild level. I'm not saying every guild starts doing this when they reach the cap, but I do think that Turbine should be enforcing positive advancement techniques or at least not silently encouraging negative decisions in order to advance.