The Myth of the broken renown system and how to fix it

[MsEricka]

I stand by making the account modifier equal to the number of accounts that actually log in that day, for decay purposes, ex. if 50 people log on in a guild today, then the decay will act like it's a 50 account guild. It would then adjust decay for guilds that are a mix of active and casual players too.

Stand by it all you want, it won't happen because it requires reprogramming the renown system. The goal is to work within what currently exists so it's possible to effect immediate change. Once you change the system, even if they agree, it will take at a minimum a few months to make the change.

Remember that Turbine works two to three updates ahead of what we currently see in the game. They simply have to do it that way, and those changes are what they're going to work on. Not changing a system that already exists even if it's hated.

Remember that it took 4 years or so to change the way the system worked for Dragontouched armor. And people yelled for that change for the entire four years.

[sephiroth1084]

I think your logic is sound

I also think that they are using a system created before they new exactly what the outcome was going to be which has led to most of the big guilds bottoming out at 75-80 ish.

Their is clearly a bias towards your smaller guilds of hardcore players. These guys are playing all the time and flying through renown.

I also understand that cudos notwithstanding their is little to gain once you have hit 70.

However a system that encourages casual/ family orientated players who dont have lots of time to play DDO to be summarily booted from their guild isnt healthy either. Neither is a system that prevents those Guilds that want to be more laid back from having a nice big ship to impress the ''noisy neighbours''

I think the answer is simple add in a mechanic that takes into account how much game time accounts are using into the equation .

This would still favour the hardcore players because they have worked out XP per hour and Treasure Chests per hour down to a fine art. The bigger guilds with a more casual playerbase would though be able to move slowly onwards rather than reaching a point of limbo

This.


The issue is that, even with accounts going inactive, no longer causing decay, and it being detrimental in the short term to kick those people at that point, in the long term, if you have people that routinely go inactive, they're likely hurting your renown much more than you lose by booting them. Even worse, is that people who play a couple days a week for a few hours tend to hurt your guild much more, even, than the people that go inactive, because they simply aren't meeting their renown quotas.


That would be fine if this game were trying to promote serious hardcore dedication as being the main goal for everyone, but that's not the case. My guild, over the last year and a half, has dropped its membership by at least 50% (and I suspect it's more like 85%). Now, sure, some of those people were hardly on, and some left on their own for legit reasons, but there were a lot of good people we dropped just because we were simply unable to press past level 70 or so. In the last year, we have gone from level 74 to level 75. Our modified account size is in the mid-60s, and it seems that, if we want to be able to get the next, significant ship upgrade at level 85, we're going to have to wait another 2 years, at least, or cut even more members, and that only because we have people that only play on weekends, or work. We've had plenty of people leave over discontent at the leadership dismissing other people for being somewhat inactive. That's not the sort of behavior the renown system should be promoting.


Heck, when I'm in a DDO mood, I can often put in 10-15 hours in the game a day, for a few days, and will occasionally spend 8+ hours a day for a week playing (I'm unemployed, unfortunately), and tend to spend more time questing and raiding than doing challenges or grinding under-level content for stuff (ie., doing the things that earn renown), but if I take a break for a week, because I go on vacation, or need a break from the game and spend a month or two doing something else, my contribution results in a penalty, because I'm just dead weight at that point.


For the first half a year, maybe full year, after guild renown came out, the Loreseekers were in the top 20 guilds on Khyber. Now we're not even on the first guild page on MyDDO, and I know for a fact that we have at least a few people off farming renown on occasion. It's irrelevant, though, because as long as we have a handful or more of casual players, we'll only just be barely outpacing our decay, if at all.


The system is broken. And the notion that the solution needs to be simple in order for it to get implemented by Turbine is ludicrous. Look at the new AC and to-hit systems. Those weren't simple changes. Heck, I proposed, and read, at least a dozen much simpler solutions that probably would have had as positive an effect on the combat system as these did. You've mis-identified Turbine's preference for the band-aid as a preference for simple solutions. From what I can tell, Turbine likes either band-aids or overly complex solutions.


The OP suggestion is somewhere between band-aid and simple solution, which leaves it within the realm of possibilities. It really doesn't address the underlying issue, which is that the system is currently designed against having guilds with a mix of casual, not casual, and hardcore players.

[BOgre]

The obvious solution is obvious.

Problem: Large guilds have more difficulty fighting renown decay than small guilds.

Cause: Casual/Infrequent players' contribution to decay greatly outweighs their contribution to renown.

Solution: Bind renown AND decay to the player instead of the guild. An intermittent/casual player earns little renown and contributes little decay. A frequent/hardcore player earns much renown and contributes much decay.

Outcome: the decay vs guildsize graph becomes linear, friendly casual guilds do not suffer an unfair decay rate over harcore guilds, consistent play is rewarded more than obsessive play.

Win-win-win.

[sephiroth1084]

A better solution might be to drop the inactivity timer down to a day--the game only counts you for renown decay if you're logged on. Then it becomes an issue of whether you are contributing to renown growth or decay while you're playing, instead of being punished for not playing.

The further define the change, keep the inactivity tracker, and assess a periodic decay for long-time inactive players, say, once a month, charge a renown value of X for players who have been inactive for 2 weeks, Y for a month, and Z for 2 months or more.


Players who are casual, and play for only a few hours a week no longer act as a drain on their guild's renown, while guilds bloated with tons of inactive members have to pay a bit for that baggage. It means that taking a long break from the game is undesirable, but probably not crippling, whereas players are ENCOURAGED to make those periodic pop-ins just to say "Hi" to everyone, which the game should be doing.


There are few things as demoralizing as taking a break from the game and returning only to find that your characters are no longer in a guild. I'm sure that there have been plenty of people who have taken a break and returned to this situation, and simply turned around and left again immediately, rather than trying to get back into their old guild or into a new one.

[sephiroth1084]

The obvious solution is obvious.

Problem: Large guilds have more difficulty fighting renown decay than small guilds.

Cause: Casual/Infrequent players' contribution to decay greatly outweighs their contribution to renown.

Solution: Bind renown AND decay to the player instead of the guild. An intermittent/casual player earns little renown and contributes little decay. A frequent/hardcore player earns much renown and contributes much decay.

Outcome: the decay vs guildsize graph becomes linear, friendly casual guilds do not suffer an unfair decay rate over harcore guilds, consistent play is rewarded more than obsessive play.

Win-win-win.

Yes.

[BOgre]

Alternate take on the issue:

Guild size / Renown / Decay is a Value relationship. That is, why do we want high guild level? To receive high level buffs. Therefore charge players decay to USE buffs, rather than to HAVE amenities.

Click on a +1 buff costs 100 renown
Click on a +2 buff costs 200 renown
(Simplified costs, actual costs based on level of earned amenity)

Amenities would have to have lets say a 50 minute timer to prevent members (and especially GUESTS) from clicking buffs many times and racking up a large renown bill.

Exclude the dummy from costs as its primary use is more for weapons testing than for the +1 to hit.

This way, inactive players aren't using the buffs and not causing decay nor earning renown. Active members are using the buffs, causing decay, but also earning renown.

[MsEricka]

So here's an example of my spreadsheet to determine decay. It uses each field for the formula and makes it nice and easy to figure out immediate changes.



The first line 57, is current decay.
The second line 57, is decay changing only the tier multiplier as I suggested in post one.
The third line 57 changes both the tier multipler and the level based multipler (which I incorrectly named Tier Multiplier).

Renown dropped for all guild sizes by an even percentage (62.5% of original) when lowering the tier multiplier and when lowering both it lowered decay to a total of 54.6% of the original decay required.

Those are some significant numbers, especially for the larger guilds. Yes it's an even percentage for all guilds but the actual number difference is massive. A 76k to 92k difference for a guild size of 150.

There exists nothing to reduce decay based on guild size. Everything is based on guild level except for the final calculation which multiplies guild size. I'm finding it quite difficult to find a way to reward large guilds without rewarding everyone.

[BOgre]

I'm finding it quite difficult to find a way to reward large guilds without rewarding everyone.

If that's your only stumbling block, then again, the obvious solution is obvious. The only Multiplier in the formula that looks at guild size is the Account Multiplier. In order to penalize large guilds less, you can change that one formula from:

Account Multiplier = ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )

to:

Account Multiplier = 4( Max(Modified Guild Size,10)^1/2
or some other fractional exponent. This will shallow the curve. It's still a curve, but it's not as harsh for the larger guilds.

[ZeebaNeighba]

Stand by it all you want, it won't happen because it requires reprogramming the renown system. The goal is to work within what currently exists so it's possible to effect immediate change. Once you change the system, even if they agree, it will take at a minimum a few months to make the change.

Remember that Turbine works two to three updates ahead of what we currently see in the game. They simply have to do it that way, and those changes are what they're going to work on. Not changing a system that already exists even if it's hated.

Remember that it took 4 years or so to change the way the system worked for Dragontouched armor. And people yelled for that change for the entire four years.

It's basically like making all accounts start the day inactive.

[SardaofChaos]

I believe the request was for a rational reason to make guilds into cliques vying for simulated popularity through opening more chests rather than the social networks they should be.

Guilds are social networks. The only reason they seem like popularity contests is because that is how the majority of leaders are choosing to run them. Nobody is being forced to do what's best 'for the renown'.

A better solution might be to drop the inactivity timer down to a day--the game only counts you for renown decay if you're logged on. Then it becomes an issue of whether you are contributing to renown growth or decay while you're playing, instead of being punished for not playing.

The further define the change, keep the inactivity tracker, and assess a periodic decay for long-time inactive players, say, once a month, charge a renown value of X for players who have been inactive for 2 weeks, Y for a month, and Z for 2 months or more.


Players who are casual, and play for only a few hours a week no longer act as a drain on their guild's renown, while guilds bloated with tons of inactive members have to pay a bit for that baggage. It means that taking a long break from the game is undesirable, but probably not crippling, whereas players are ENCOURAGED to make those periodic pop-ins just to say "Hi" to everyone, which the game should be doing.


There are few things as demoralizing as taking a break from the game and returning only to find that your characters are no longer in a guild. I'm sure that there have been plenty of people who have taken a break and returned to this situation, and simply turned around and left again immediately, rather than trying to get back into their old guild or into a new one.

This idea seems just as simple as the OP, but further calculations would probably have to be made to determine whether it has as much of an effect.

[RabidApathy]

Removing the +10 would give all guilds a discount on decay. However, there is a massive change for some guilds.

A guild size of 11 gets a 50% discount on decay.
A guild size of 50 gets a 17% discount on decay.
A guild size of 80 gets a 10% discount on decay.

Even if you used the small guild renown multiplier you would end up with

A guild size of 11 gets a 33% discount on decay.
A guild size of 50 gets a 22% discount on decay.
A guild size of 80 gets a 10% discount on decay.

Your suggestion only helps small guilds even more, and breaks any kind of balance there currently is with decay. I know you're making suggestions and that's greatly appreciated, but consider the numbers first.

Either your math is screwy, or you were misunderstanding what I was saying. That guild of 11 would get a 48% discount from removing the +10, but then the decay would be multiplied by their x3.25 renown bonus. The idea being that a member in a small guild should have to pull exactly the same number of renown tokens per day as a person in a large guild to maintain any given guild level. Currently a member of a 50 member guild has to pull twice as many renown tokens as a person in a 11 member guild, to maintain the same guild level.

The final results would be:

A guild size of 2 gets a 53% discount on decay.
A guild size of 4 gets a 3% discount on decay.
A guild size of 6 gets a 50% increase in decay.
A guild size of 11 gets a 70% increase in decay.
A guild size of 30 gets a 10% increase decay.
A guild size of 40 gets a 6% discount on decay.
A guild size of 50 gets a 22% discount on decay.
A guild size of 80 gets a 10% discount on decay.

This would normalize BOgre's graph putting all guilds at the 3000 mark. If the devs found 3000 to be too high, it could be scaled while maintaining parity between guild sizes.

[erethizon]

I think the problem is that decay is assessed daily, but only exempts inactive accounts after 2 weeks. If someone didn't log in for a few days, someone else has to pay their dues.

On Orien, Legends of Orien is meant to be a casual guild. It's modified account size is around 580. Hypothetically, suppose 40% of the guild only has 6 hours to play during a week, most of it on the weekends. Run your numbers again on how much burden putting the decay of 232 people on the "active, daily" players 6 days a week adds.

This is why "casual guilds" are punished.

If you're going to assess daily, exempt daily. If you're going to exempt bi-weekly, assess bi-weekly.

This has been my solution for quite some time. If a person does not log in for a day then he should not contribute to renown loss for that day either. It should not take weeks for someone to stop causing decay for the guild. If decay is going to occur every day then the guild size should only include people that logged in that day.

[laurawilder]

The notion that a small guild needs to pull the same amount of tokens as a larger guild is way off the mark and would really ruin the system.

If you have 50 members and another has 11 members that means you have 5 time as many people to pull token from running quests. So to needing 2 times as much is fair.

Recruiting is the key to making guilds work. If you recruit similar players then there is not an issue. Guild levels and the perks that come with it are meant to be special for active players that are constantly striving and playing and working together.

Many of you feel using "casual" is the same as an inactive player and thats not the case. Turbine did their best to help by not counting some "inactive" members into the equation but the rest must be done by guild leaders. Guilds should not keep members that do not quest or do their part to bring in renown if you want the highest level perks that come with the system.

Casual is someone that does not lvl an alt from 1-20 in 1-4 weeks but prefers to play slower. But they are active and run quests at least every other day to enjoy themselves. Inactive players are those that just log in to say hi, are missing for weeks at a time and do not care about the guild to be blunt.

Expectations need to be adjusted for those of you that feel the system is not working. You will not attain high levels and maintain high levelunless you have active members.

Just like in rl fame is a fad. If you do not daily remind people in now 2 worlds who you are your 15 minutes will pass by.

The system works many of you are just trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

If you want the best then you must recruit as the Harpers recruited. Selectively based on your style and expectations.


As above was mentioned.

"On Orien, Legends of Orien is meant to be a casual guild. It's modified account size is around 580. Hypothetically, suppose 40% of the guild only has 6 hours to play during a week, most of it on the weekends. Run your numbers again on how much burden putting the decay of 232 people on the "active, daily" players 6 days a week adds.

This is why "casual guilds" are punished"


This guild is not being punished. It is being limited as it should be. It is bloated and full of members that should not be in the guild. So if you are a casual guild that is not trying to be active in making achievements then you should not have the fame of the guilds that make it a goal to be the highest.

High guild levels are not a given it is an achievement. Not acheiving something is not the same as being punished. If I come in third based on performance I am not being punished by getting a bronze medal. It means I did nto do the best that could be achieved.

[RabidApathy]

The notion that a small guild needs to pull the same amount of tokens as a larger guild is way off the mark and would really ruin the system.

If you have 50 members and another has 11 members that means you have 5 time as many people to pull token from running quests. So to needing 2 times as much is fair.

The large guild has to pull ~10x the renown tokens with ~5x the people, which means that each and every person in the large guild has to pull twice the number of renown tokens as the people in the small guild.

Let's say we have a guild of 11 and a guild of 50. Each person in each of these guilds pulls one legendary token per day, and that's their total renown contribution.

The guild of 11 will reach equilibrium bouncing between guild level 86 and 87
The guild of 50 will reach equilibrium bouncing between guild level 75 and 76

If the guild of 50 were to kick any 2 members, they would gain a guild level.
If the guild of 11 were to acquire 3 new members (each pulling a legendary), they would lose a level.


I'm fine with guild being rewarded for being more hardcore, but guilds being rewarded solely for being small seems silly at best and counter productive at worst.

[laurawilder]

"I'm fine with guild being rewarded for being more hardcore, but guilds being rewarded solely for being small seems silly at best and counter productive at worst."

Everyone assumes that all the small guilds have active members and not some dead weight as well. Smaller guilds are more the size that this perk was created for and thus easier to compete.

Lets look at me for an example I am a member of several high level guilds that are very active and have the best of everything. I run often now in those guilds as a not only fun to run with those people, but as my job to maintain what we have. That is how it should be.

I also have a personal guild for myself and my four year old daughter that will never see the top achievement but without the reward scaling we would never have even gotten to 40.

When it comes down to it one does not need to be hardcore to get up to 70-80 after that though it should be very hard to achieve and maintain otherwise it defeats the purpose and waters down the efforts of those truly worthy of note.

[sephiroth1084]

The notion that a small guild needs to pull the same amount of tokens as a larger guild is way off the mark and would really ruin the system.

Not if you're also accounting for their small guild size bonus.

[MsEricka]

Account Multiplier = 4( Max(Modified Guild Size,10)^1/2

DUH I can't believe I didn't think of something like that. But again I'm not sure if they will do that as it does mean another step in the process, rather than just replacing numbers.

Either your math is screwy, or you were misunderstanding what I was saying.

For the numbers I was estimating, that explains the small differences. As for the rest I suppose I did misunderstand you. Not a bad solution at all, but is it doable with the current system that we already have? Lets look again

remove the +10 from the account size and just multiply the decay by the Small Guild renown multiplier

Removing the +10 is easy, simply replace with 0. Since it's an additive there would be no divisor issues. But the multiplication part is a new step in the process. I'm not saying I'm against it, but as you know I've been trying to figure out how to work within the system we already have.

I've gotta go out for the day in a while, and tomorrow I'm busy so I'll try and modify my spreadsheet for the two possible solutions above and see how it works out.

There are just not enough +1's to hand out. I've already run out again just in this thread alone today!

[BOgre]

This guild is not being punished. It is being limited as it should be. It is bloated and full of members that should not be in the guild.

It's THIS kind of thinking that we need to avoid. This is exactly the problem with the renown system. If guild leaders think this way, and are tempted to kick casual players because they play infrequently and cause a renown burden, then those players will log in to find they've been kicked. They'll join another guild, and again login to find they've been kicked. At some point, they'll stop logging in altogether. Is this what you're telling Turbine to do? Alienate the casual player?
Turbine, we do not want that!

[Dysmetria]

It's THIS kind of thinking that we need to avoid. This is exactly the problem with the renown system. If guild leaders think this way, and are tempted to kick casual players because they play infrequently and cause a renown burden, then those players will log in to find they've been kicked. They'll join another guild, and again login to find they've been kicked. At some point, they'll stop logging in altogether. Is this what you're telling Turbine to do? Alienate the casual player?
Turbine, we do not want that!

Many guild leaders that care about renown gain ask players if they are going to be active before recruiting them. If a casual lies to get into such a guild it should come as no surprise or be alienating in any way when they get kicked.

Alternately those casuals could just join a guild for casuals that doesn't care about renown and won't kick them.

[BOgre]

Alternately those casuals could just join a guild for casuals that doesn't care about renown and won't kick them.

I have Alts in such a guild. We have a mod guild size of 150ish. We care more about grouping with friends than with Ship Amenities, BUT we do also like our ship amenities. Every coupla months we hear grumbling among the member about decay and why we're stalled at our current level. A couple of times a year we are forced to kick complete inactives and prod the infrequents. It sucks. We're in a grey zone between casual-friendly and hardcore.

The point of this thread is that large guilds have trouble fighting decay, and SHOULD NOT HAVE TO make the decision between remaining a place to group socially, versus kicking members in order to maintain amenities.

Statements like your above minimize the issue, instead of addressing the problem.