Guild Renown Changes

[Dandonk]

We'd like to allow people to continue to discuss guild renown and provide feedback and analysis of the current system, but in order to do that we need people to stop insulting and fighting with each other. Remember, even though this is the Internet, it's okay for someone to have an opinion that differs from you.

That's great. But how about some kind of word from you guys? It's been months now, and one of the reasons this keeps going is that noone knows what to expect anymore.

What are the goals of the system now?
What's the time frame of any further changes?
What kind of things are you thinking about changing, if any?

[slarden]

then you are mistaken. The ransack penalty does NOT work that way.

I am sure you sincerely believe this, but the devs did already confirm that there is a ransack penalty for gaining a guild level and that penalty was increased as part of this change. You can check earlier in this thread to confirm.

[Impaqt]

OK, I went back and found the quote.....

This isn't actually new - we've always had a reduction in renown drops after you've gained a level in a day. In the experiment we did increase the magnitude of the value to reduce the maximum number of levels that could possibly be gained in a single day (from 7 to 3), but it was rarely hit past the lower guild levels.

I must say this is very wrong. gaining 1 level should never reduce the amount of renown drop for anyone. it causes the exact problem slarden described. that being. you gain a level, and then are penalized for that level, and then you lose the level with decay. then you gain it back only to start the process over again.

It seems to me the reduction is small..... but when you are getting a significant bump to your renown intake from "Small guild bonus", it adds up much faster than a large guild experiences.

Ransack should not start until you hit 2 levels in a day.

I apologize for not believing this was occurring.

[slarden]

I've made this suggestion before but I will make it again.

We should change the fixed value of 20 accounts to a fixed value of 10 accounts until Turbine determines a longer term strategy for guilds. This would allow all guilds currently stuck to move forward and wouldn't hurt anyone.

If the temporary change is going to last a long time, this would be a welcome change.

[Dandonk]

I've made this suggestion before but I will make it again.

We should change the fixed value of 20 accounts to a fixed value of 10 accounts until Turbine determines a longer term strategy for guilds. This would allow all guilds currently stuck to move forward and wouldn't hurt anyone.

If the temporary change is going to last a long time, this would be a welcome change.

This could work as a temporary change, helping small guilds out while Turbine is working on a long-term plan.

[Hendrik]

Why is it hard to swallow that small guilds can't make that much renown when the large guilds argued that it was impossible for lage guilds to make that much? Many people from small guilds in this thread talked about how difficult it is for small guilds to level due to decay. I don't need to name them you can read the thread yourself.

Small guilds have 10x more decay/person than people in other large guilds. Why did large guilds need a reduction in decay if people in small guilds should be able to easily earn 10x more renown than people in large guilds can earn.

I am sorry but I don't need to prove that people in small guilds are having a hard time earning 10x more renown than people in other large guilds. You can do the research and disprove it if you think it's the case.

I think decay should be eliminated, but if it's not the # of accounts in a guild should be part of the formula.

As I've stated several times in this thread. My guild is moving rather fast at the moment because I have massive time availabilty for 3 months ending next week. In addition I followed advice given to me by a small high level guild about how to level fasers. Namely, stop forming lfms and solo/zerg or group with only zerg parties. I've done that about 90% of the time and since then renown generation is not a problem. I've turned down party requests a lot but still group with some of my friends that like to take their time in dungeons. I adjust my play style to the party I don't zerg in party of people that like to move slow. So I just group with them much less now.

You have made the claims that 'small guilds are prevented from leveling' and that 'small guilds are penealized' as well as others.

Once again you have deflected a very simple question that would provide fact to your claims. Your lack of providing such valued information to back up your claims and position on the matter is very telling. It has become very transparent and the burden of proof is in your lap by making such claims. Failure to provide facts, even very basic information, that would support or refute you case has weakened your position to the point where you cannot be taken seriously anymore.

Going to report me too for taking a stand on my position and one the counderdicts yours? Unable or unwilling to provide factual numbers and then resort to that, awesome.

So, going to provide Guild name or not? PM is very OK and name wil not be released as per CoC. That way we can all see what renown is gained/lost from an actual proponent of further change. Some actual real game numbers would only support your position of change - unless the numbers only debunk your position.

I will still wait for some concrete evidence of your position with acutal information that can be tracked and quantified. Until you can provide something that can be meansured by anyone, IMO, your position cannot be supported in the least.

Until then, keep that broken record spinning. Someone might listent to the same thing over and over and over.

[Dandonk]

Why is the first post in this thread, by Tolero, not enough for you, Hendrik? It clearly shows that the new system has a much higher decay/account for small guilds than for large ones. I don't really think we need more "proof" than this.

[Hendrik]

Why is the first post in this thread, by Tolero, not enough for you, Hendrik? It clearly shows that the new system has a much higher decay/account for small guilds than for large ones. I don't really think we need more "proof" than this.

Then help further your cause for change man.

Show us what renown you gain per day, what you loose per day, what your guild size is, what size bonus you get, everything.

The only way change will come is from hard numbers! To get people to support you, show them the numbers!

Show them to me. You and slarden. PLEASE! You cannot get people to help you without numbers - you know, the info only Turbine has to see if this is working or not.

By the Nine Hells, show me the numbers. Proove me worng with numbers - somethiong that can be verified. Do that and I'll post just as loud FOR change.

Convert me with numbers, please. If the system is wrong, and the numbers show it, you will have another advocate for change. It will take that proof to win people over, not just me - DEVs too!

Math is a far better for support then any 'feeling'.

Convert me - and I will help advocate for change.

Thread is getting heated again Dannok - going to bow out til it cools off. PM me if you want to convert me with numbers, something real, something substantial.

Besides the heated exchanges, I have enjoyed our debate and hope you have not take offense by my position. If you have, I apologize and was not my intent to do so.



/respect!

[Dandonk]

The system, as laid out by Tolero in her post, is real, factual and true. The consequences are easily figured out. I do not have to "convince" you with any numbers - the system is plain, and easy to see. The only reason you seem to want numbers is to get some ammunition to throw stuff back in my face. Sorry, I won't give you that.

So, if you cannot accept the rules of the system and their easy-to-figure consequences from Tolero's post, I can't help you.

[smatt]

Hmm, well while it seems I'm just poking slarden with a stick... (I probably am) I've stated several times I thought here were some things that needed to be changed, to create a bit of a better situation for small guilds. Although, I don't think his idas are part of the equation, since I dont' see decay being removed completely.

But this whole "Victim" thing gets me... 500 "Victim" posts...

I'm sure the Devs ARE still skimming the thread.... In fact they only respond to about 1% of what they actually read... Becoem a Dev, go and post then you will find out why LOL

Stop playing "Victim"... Although the tactic has worked well for anybody playing a monk...

I do forsee some changes to guild renown coming *Soon...

[Dandonk]

How did large guilds get this change through? By posting about their concerns. Good for them. Can you really blame us for doing the same?

[slarden]

Hmm, well while it seems I'm just poking slarden with a stick... (I probably am) I've stated several times I thought here were some things that needed to be changed, to create a bit of a better situation for small guilds. Although, I don't think his idas are part of the equation, since I dont' see decay being removed completely.

But this whole "Victim" thing gets me... 500 "Victim" posts...

I'm sure the Devs ARE still skimming the thread.... In fact they only respond to about 1% of what they actually read... Becoem a Dev, go and post then you will find out why LOL

Stop playing "Victim"... Although the tactic has worked well for anybody playing a monk...

I do forsee some changes to guild renown coming *Soon...

I am not playing victim - I am stating facts and providing feedback - and I realize I am providing ALOT of feedback. As I said many times, our guild is doing just fine once I stopped posting lfms and solo/zerging or running with people that zerg. However, other small guilds are less fortunate than our guild. I would like to chance to participate in festivals without our guild moving backwards or running with people that like to run slower. I am not too worried about advancement otherwise.

That would be great if there are changes coming soon. However, I did learn that being relatively silent didn't work so well for small guilds. They signed petitions and made posts, but avoided the arguments. That didn't seem to really work out so well for us.

There were many posts on the topic in the general discussion topic prior to the change so I don't think anything being done by me or small guilds is over the top.

As I said, if the development team would like to take time to devise a new system it would be great if they change the fixed account size multiplier from 20 to 10 so all guilds that are stuck can move forward. This would allow a level 60 guild of 10 or less that is stuck to advance 1 level in an entire year. There is not much risk in doing so considering some guilds received over a 90% reduction and gained 10+ levels already. I am happy for the large guilds that benefited, but lets make it good for all guilds.

[Hendrik]

How did large guilds get this change through? By posting about their concerns. Good for them. Can you really blame us for doing the same?

Who is the us?

Your L84 169 member Guild?

[Dandonk]

Who is the us?

Your L84 169 member Guild?

Yes. And Slarden's guild, and all the other small guilds that have posted in this and other threads.

[Wipey]

Show them to me.

Before the change, account based decay kept large guilds at "equilibrium " ( me no speaky English ) depending on activity.

Now with decay not depending on guild size only level, small guilds are at disadvantage, especially the ones with less than 10 accounts.

Compare guilds with 6 and 200 accounts, let's say lvl 84-85. 1 071 050 to get from 84 to 85.
Before :
large guild, 298723 daily decay, 1493 per account daily, 5355+ per account to get to 85
small guild , 22 760 daily, 1264 per account, 59 502 to get to 85, that's counting 300 percent bonus.

Now:
large guild , 28450 daily decay, 142 ( lol ) per account daily
small guild, 28450 daily decay , 1580 per account daily

You see large guilds raising, the point is, small guild bonus doesn't make up for the difference anymore and large guilds have huge advantage. Small guilds have to get more renown to level and more renown to stay where they are. As Dan said, large guilds asked for change, why small guilds asking would be wrong ?
PS. I am terrible at math, I mean it.

[Hendrik]

Yes. And Slarden's guild, and all the other small guilds that have posted in this and other threads.

169 members is not small.

That's large and high level.

[Dandonk]

169 members is not small.

That's large and high level.

That depends on how many alts people have, and how many are inactive.

In my case, we are 7 active account.

Personally, I have something like 27 or so characters.

Are we high level? Perhaps. I don't see why we have to be worse off than large guilds, no matter what level we are.

[Hendrik]

Before the change, account based decay kept large guilds at "equilibrium " ( me no speaky English ) depending on activity.

Now with decay not depending on guild size only level, small guilds are at disadvantage, especially the ones with less than 10 accounts.

Compare guilds with 6 and 200 accounts, let's say lvl 84-85. 1 071 050 to get from 84 to 85.
Before :
large guild, 298723 daily decay, 1493 per account daily, 5355+ per account to get to 85
small guild , 22 760 daily, 1264 per account, 59 502 to get to 85, that's counting 300 percent bonus.

Now:
large guild , 28450 daily decay, 142 ( lol ) per account daily
small guild, 28450 daily decay , 1580 per account daily

You see large guilds raising, the point is, small guild bonus doesn't make up for the difference anymore and large guilds have huge advantage. Small guilds have to get more renown to level and more renown to stay where they are. As Dan said, large guilds asked for change, why small guilds asking would be wrong ?
PS. I am terrible at math, I mean it.

Thank you, finally some numbers!

So for that small guild with that 300% bonus, one member would have to pull what, one 500 a day to just about cover daily decay? I suck at math too, why I ask for it.



If that is indeed the case, and our math is not laughable horrid, then i revert back to my original suggestion when this debate started; if any change is needed ( and ONLY Turbine knows that) is would need to be on the renown size bonus. A small tick up might do the trick, maybe another 50%.

Only Turbine has the metrics and time will tell.

[Hendrik]

That depends on how many alts people have, and how many are inactive.

In my case, we are 7 active account.

Personally, I have something like 27 or so characters.

Are we high level? Perhaps. I don't see why we have to be worse off than large guilds, no matter what level we are.

In a few days, we will come back and post how much you have gained.



5pm est @ 30521515

[Dandonk]

In a few days, we will come back and post how much you have gained.

We could, but it would tell you nothing.

We have lost renown over the last few weeks, due to people being away/not running stuff so much. We will likely continue to lose renown, since we're still not running much.
Just before Christmas, we were gaining some, and at one point reached 85. Well, at many points, over and over.

Renown gain, in itself, says little. It has to be looked at in comparison to the activity in the guild, and what kind of stuff they're running (since challenges and certain epics give little if any renown).