A call for Guild Leaders to state your support for the current renown system

[knockcocker]

lvl 69 with 7 active. I dont care for the system much. We have 2 that play allot and 5 casual. Very hard to lvl with only 2 really contributing. Not willing to dump casual players.

This.

Brotherhood of BYOH on Thelanis (current leader though in the style of the Cultural Revolution; I was in the toilet at
the time )

I expect we'll start falling backwards soon.

[DocBenway]

20 Accounts, 4 active. Dislike.

The amount of confusion around the system alone is enough to earn it a "Bad" descriptor. Folks don't know that someone marked "1 month" on the list doesn't count for decay and I consistently see folks with policies that just give themselves 2 more weeks of +1 size for decay.

How many threads have come up asking why a guild with less than 10 members is decaying as though they had 10, with no clarification as to why the hard coded minimum size is there.

There are founding members that have not logged in in 2 years, but there is no way in hell that I'd boot them. No matter how much Turbine wants me to.

[grayham]

6 Accounts, all 'active' (by hook or crook)
I like the current system but don't like the decay and think there should be 'lock in' every 5 levels or so. Make of that what you will.

[Ungood]

Since the start of Guild Decay and Renown Loss, I have been against it and suggested several ideas on how it could have been done better, and made more sense. I even Suggested Guild Alliances.

Am I am fan of the Decay System? No I am not.

[niehues]

I have read many many treads like this and I have being following the dev tracker for quite some time have not seen a word on this case..

have some one know anything about it or have i missed something about the devs looking on this case...

if not i really wish they at least could give us a word or two about this.. even if that would be like.. "we are not gonna do anything about it.. u guys have to live with it.."

[Gremmlynn]

Again, with respect, you are (maybe not you personally) putting more value on the Ship and Amenities then the people. It is not the Ship, Amenities, or the Guild Level that makes the Guild what it is, it is the members. The members should come first and not what fancy buff will be available next. Putting more value on some useless buff over a valued member is the road to ruin. Not only for yourself, but for your members and the Guild as a whole. I have been guilty of this myself in the past, BUT NEVER AGAIN!

I do not argue against the 'fact' the renown system needs a tweak here and there. But also we, the playerbase, have a mindset where we value these crappy buffs more then our members. We need to change that. All of us.

Again, it is our members that make our Guilds what they are and not the Ship we own. Casual, hardcore, whatever. Does not matter - unless you place more value on the buffs over the people that got you/us there.

Re-evaluate what is more important to you and your Guild. The buffs or the members. That is the hardest decision we have to make. For me, it was easy, it is the friends and the many that we/I now consider family that are vastly more important to us then amenities, guild levels, or type of ship we fly. I can play the game without a Ship and that goes with it, what I cannot play the game without are those friends I have made and are Guildmates.

Unfortunately, the system the developers give us encourages this type of behavior. With it's easy early levels it even hooks players on it. While I agree with everything you say about players making the choices, I'll disagree that the system that encourages them to have to make those choices at all is just in need of some minor tweaking. It needs to stop punishing players and their guild mates for playing as much as they can or want to play rather than as much as Turbine thinks they should play.

[Zargarx]

Comments - leader in a guild lvl 41 and had been an officer in a lvl 73 guild.
Quit the level 73 guild as disliked the hash culling and unpleasant rules that was deemed as required to push the guild higher. Any character not logged in every week gets kicked. Have any characters outside of the guild or not do enough for the guild, get kicked (no idea how the leader determined that...), no new invites or get kicked, etc. So went from a fun guild to not fun all because of renown decay. Guild chat became near dead. etc.
For the level 41 guild (3 accounts active, ), as a I leader I haven't wanted to invite anyone in a long time.
Also, for very small guilds (below 11, and even more so below 6), the calculation for renown loss is pretty horrible. So get less renown than a guild with 6 active accounts, and get hit with higher renown decay rate.

They should make adjustments on how renown decay is calculated to make it less punitive.
Removal with no renown loss of those 6 months inactive should be added. If someone is inactive during the day, they should count for less (maybe 1/4?) than someone that is active. And somewhat flatten the loss curve.
Just do something please....

[Tshober]

I have read many many treads like this and I have being following the dev tracker for quite some time have not seen a word on this case..

have some one know anything about it or have i missed something about the devs looking on this case...

if not i really wish they at least could give us a word or two about this.. even if that would be like.. "we are not gonna do anything about it.. u guys have to live with it.."

I have not seen any stated position from the devs on this issue either. However, the Build Your Guild event that they ran prior to the MotU expansion had, as its stated goals, many of the things that those of us who want change here are asking for. Unfortunately, that event was pretty flawed in its implementation and did not really achieve the stated goal of helping out guilds that help out new players. What it really did was help out guilds that reincarnate a lot. The problem is they did not have the courage to attack the heart of the problem, renown decay, directly. Instead they tried to put a bandage on it with bonuses after the damage had already been done. Even so, this still gives me some hope that the devs recognize there is a problem and are looking for a solution.

[SirValentine]

I would like to call for guild leaders to state your support or dislike for the current renown system in the game.

I'm not the guild leader, but I'm an officer and my leader is not on the forums.

I can't really answer your question. There are things I dislike about the current system, and I can imagine better systems, but I can also imagine much worse replacements. If you had a specific alternate proposal, I could give you a clear "I like A) better than B)"-type of answer.

I guess if you're willing to take my answer at all, it's a "meh". :-)

state your member numbers, and your guild size.

Roughly 20 accounts, currently level 91.

[Theender]

Level 63 Guild.
3 active players. A lot of inactive ones.
Dislike

I'm a part of a RL friends guild; with 2 other friends I sort of regularly play with, about twice a week. However I'm a regular player, about 2 hours each day minimum. Incidentally none of us are the guild leader, but I play very often enough to know how much guild renown I need each day just to break even.

This has been said before, Renown decay causes me to hate the casual friends of our guild that spring up from inactivity just to say hello or check to see what DDO has been up to. It makes me feel like a janitor, I have to clean up the **** they unknowingly placed onto the guild.

Turbine has tried to counter this by making quest XP rewards for casual players coming back from inactivity. But the cons far outweigh the pros, since they are still 'casual players' and would hardly turned into regular players just like that since that messes with their lifestyle. So whatever they contribute would be erased by the decay. And I still rather have them not come on at all.

On the other side of the coin, should I be angry about having guild levels in the first place? It's a very irrational frame of mind to be annoyed that an additional feature, that is not necessarily required to accomplish a goal, does not work to my liking. But the answer is I am disappoint.

[llyrnionfor]

Disclaimer: I'm a casual player in a small guild that has reached almost level 80. Since we're all good friends, my guildies don't bother me about my "casualness", and the fact that my contribution to GR is minor.

The cynical in me can't help but believe this is just another grind thrown at us. Why?

I remember when I heard about GRD, I asked "Why?", the answer being something along the lines "It's there to prevent abuses, like getting a guild up to 100 and then booting everyone out".

And I didn't quite get it, because there's a much simpler solution to that: Give GR to the toon, not the guild. Then, if the toon is booted out, he takes his renown along, and when he joins another guild, he adds that renown to his new guild.

"Ah!" I hear you say "But that will give rise to much drama!". Which, as I count the number of threads I've seen about this subject, is totally different from what we have today, with GRD.

[Hendrik]

Unfortunately, the system the developers give us encourages this type of behavior. With it's easy early levels it even hooks players on it. While I agree with everything you say about players making the choices, I'll disagree that the system that encourages them to have to make those choices at all is just in need of some minor tweaking. It needs to stop punishing players and their guild mates for playing as much as they can or want to play rather than as much as Turbine thinks they should play.

Thank you for the post Gremm.

I still believe that we have done more damage to ourselves with this decay system then Turbine intended. At its heart Decay makes sense to me. And yet, I still think there needs to be some adjustments made to it, if for no other reason to 'make' us change how we deal with it.

Not every Guild can or should make 100. Thats just fine. I would much rather be in a Guild at level 25 with 50 good people/players then a Guild of lvl 80 with 100 questionable. The renown horse race is a game that we no longer play because it is harmful and a source of drama. Again, I place more value on my members then the shallow popularity race that has become renown.

[Spoonwelder]

Not the leader but the Officer charged with monitoring the redolent pastures of the DDO Forums. Not gonna say what it is redolent with but pastures have 3 things in them; grass, cows and what cows turn grass into.

Anyway....guild is on Argo, OSD (see sig), 200 accounts 65 active...probably 30-40 active 20-30 casuals no departures in the past few months just people steadily going inactive. We are not fans of the decay system. We are treading water at 70 even though the 30-40 play everyday or every other day and still can't pull enough renown to move forward.

I have more detailed commentary on this in the other big thread on this....check my recent posts (if you care)

[TPICKRELL]

Level 77 guild, 77 members. Hate the reknown system. Penalizes us for not kicking our casual players.

[MakeItADouble]

/signed

Our guild leader is on hiatus.

I'm an officer of a large guild, C.L.A.W of Thenalis. 110 current modifed active accounts. The rate of decay is pretty much impossible to keep up with. We dropped 5 levels since the build your guild event.

So we are seemingly being punished for having a large lot of good people to game with.

[Gremmlynn]

Not the leader, she doesn't come here, but pretty much 1st officer.

Guild of about 120 active accounts on Wayfinder, maybe a dozen of which could be considered more than casual. Level 47 and holding.

Hate the system. Makes it very hard to maintain core players for the rest to play with whenever life, or whim, lets them log in. Lose the core and the rest have little reason to bother playing.

[Thrudh]

nm... double post

[Thrudh]

So the real measurement may not be whether guilds can still maintain level 63, but is the system driving away players.

True, I'm assuming that most people have the same appreciation of cost/benefit ratios that I do...

Which may be a bad assumption...

I'm still not sure why anyone cares if their guild is 63 or 89 when there are very few benefits past 63. But then I also don't understand the people who grind two hundred hours for one more +1.

P.S. Why would you not invite your friend to play even if your guild is restrictive? There's such a thing as a friend list you know.

[Thrudh]

I lead a medium-sized guild of roleplayers. We've been in the 47-50 range for over a year, and do not play quickly enough to get above this.

We want to benefit from guild amenities, but we don't want to kick anyone.

Ever.

DISLIKE.

--Alaunra

Okay, then I agree there is a problem.... 63 should be maintainable by any group in my opinion... It may take a casual guild a long time to get there, but they should be able to reach it, and maintain in the mid 60s even with just casual play.

[Thrudh]

Level 31 guild, 6 or 7 accounts, ALL HATRED ALL THE TIME for renown decay(count that at a 'dislike' for the current renown system).

To the point where I have instructed my guild to stop retrieving renown from chests or taking it as quest rewards as we are refusing to use the renown system until they remove renown decay.

Heh...

Decay is awfully small at level 31. Sounds like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.