Guild Renown Changes

[Wipey]

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.

No sir, that 1580 was counted with small guild bonus. With 6 accounts it's 4740 daily per account.
It's 11 times more daily renown needed per account than my 200 account large guild example.
That's why you see really large guilds moving 5-6 levels, and raising, while they didn't move months or years before the change.

[Artos_Fabril]

Emphasis mine.
Less doomy. Same sentiment.

Granted it's not *you* claiming doom, but it's happening.

They do indeed. The difference in decay per person is much greater between guilds of 1 and 16, than between guilds of 16 and 300 (1600% versus 1250%). If there is iniquity in the system, it is not based on whether the guild is large or small, it is inherent in any system that divides work to be done by the number of people doing that work.

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.

The difference in decay per person is much greater between guilds of 1 and 16, than between guilds of 16 and 300 (1600% versus 1250%). If there is iniquity in the system, it is not based on whether the guild is large or small, it is inherent in any system that divides work to be done by the number of people doing that work.

This is the problem with looking at the current decay formula as decay/account rather than decay/level: Any system which divides an amount of work by the number of people doing the work inherently favors having more people to help out.

169 members is not small.

That's large and high level.

To be fair, 169 characters is probably between 10 and 22 accounts, which is a small to medium/small guild. A couple of inactives, or one or two people with extremely large numbers of guilded characters, could throw that estimation off. If we were looking at 169 accounts, that would be a large guild.

[Dandonk]

No sir, that 1580 was counted with small guild bonus. With 6 accounts it's 4740 daily per account.
It's 11 times more daily renown needed per account than my 200 account large guild example.
That's why you see really large guilds moving 5-6 levels, and raising, while they didn't move months or years before the change.

Indeed.

It's good that large guilds are moving. That is a good thing.

I just wish small guilds would get the same kind of help.

[Dandonk]

This is the problem with looking at the current decay formula as decay/account rather than decay/level: Any system which divides an amount of work by the number of people doing the work inherently favors having more people to help out.

Yep.

And this new skewed system goes contrary to the stated goals of making small guilds as viable as large ones.

Edit: Anyway, time to sleep. You'll get a break from me for now

[Hendrik]

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).

It would tell us that in fact you ARE gaining. But since you are not running much, you cannot gain. No change in the system can fix that aspect of your problem. More active members would. Even if decay is lowered, you still have to be active to gain renown. You do not have a decay problem, you have an activity problem.

And renown has always been a measure, and dependant, of member activity.

[Hendrik]

No sir, that 1580 was counted with small guild bonus. With 6 accounts it's 4740 daily per account.
It's 11 times more daily renown needed per account than my 200 account large guild example.
That's why you see really large guilds moving 5-6 levels, and raising, while they didn't move months or years before the change.

Thank you again for the clairification. Suck at math but helps 'see' the problem.



But we. generic we, are seeing those 5-6 levels over a span of many months. A level once every 10-14 days. More active the membership the more advancement. Less active the membership, less advancement. Decay not with standing. If you have less active members, the weight of decay is shifted to those active. Not all that 'fair' for those members. Lower Decay and you will still see that extra weight shifted, just not all that much.

Solutions would be;

More active members
More Members
Lessen Decay, but then still helps a more active guild, back to square one.
Adjust guild bonus slightly upward.

Two the players have the power to do but refuse. Two Turbine can, but only one is any type of solution - same one that was suggested some 90 pages ago.

[Chaos000]

It's not really that hard to figure out. Under the old system, small guilds and large guilds had roughly the same decay/person after guild bonus was factored in.

The issue caused by assigning decay/person is that for each additional player who gained little to no renown in turn raised up the decay/person requirement for the other members of the guild.

If an alternative to the current system is proposed, it should not revert to punishing guilds for retaining players gaining little to no renown by assigning a metric based on decay per person unless there is a way to reduce the decay/person for players that are not able to play the game more than "once in a while."

[slarden]

The issue caused by assigning decay/person is that for each additional player who gained little to no renown in turn raised up the decay/person requirement for the other members of the guild.

If an alternative to the current system is proposed, it should not revert to punishing guilds for retaining players gaining little to no renown by assigning a metric based on decay per person unless there is a way to reduce the decay/person for players that are not able to play the game more than "once in a while."

This actually has nothing to do with how decay was calculated. Whether decay is a fixed value or based on the number of members, the more active members have to earn more decay to make up for the less active members. This is just as true for small gulds now as it was 6 months ago.

The problem was decay was too high for the average guild to overcome as they reached higher levels - large and small. This is still the case for small guilds. The reason large guilds are leveling is not because the formula was changed, it is because decay was reduced.

Decay/person doesn't cause any problems. High decay causes problems regardless of how it is calculated.

All the reasons you give about decay causing problems for large guilds also cause problems for small guilds. The difference is that the problems still exist for small guilds because there was no reduction in decay.

[slarden]

The issue caused by assigning decay/person is that for each additional player who gained little to no renown in turn raised up the decay/person requirement for the other members of the guild.

If an alternative to the current system is proposed, it should not revert to punishing guilds for retaining players gaining little to no renown by assigning a metric based on decay per person unless there is a way to reduce the decay/person for players that are not able to play the game more than "once in a while."

Here is the real reason the old per account formula was favoring small guilds. It had nothing to do with the concept being wrong, the math was flawed:

The old formula was min ((accounts + 10) ,20) which was a poor way to factor in small guild bonus.

Under this formula a guild of 6 would get decay for 20 and had the renown earning power of 24 due to the small guild bonus. A guild of 20 would get decay for 30 and the renown earning power of 41. A guild of 200 would get decay for 210 and had the renown earning power of 200.

The formula should have simply been: accounts * (1 + small guild bonus)

If this formula would have been used large guilds would have been slighly higher and small guilds would have been slightly lower.

The theory was correct to apply decay on a per account basis, it just wasn't applied right.

[Artos_Fabril]

Here is the real reason the old per account formula was favoring small guilds. It had nothing to do with the concept being wrong, the math was flawed:

The old formula was min ((accounts + 10) ,20) which was a poor way to factor in small guild bonus.

Under this formula a guild of 6 would get decay for 20 and had the renown earning power of 24 due to the small guild bonus. A guild of 20 would get decay for 30 and the renown earning power of 41. A guild of 200 would get decay for 210 and had the renown earning power of 200.

The formula should have simply been: accounts * (1 + small guild bonus)

If this formula would have been used large guilds would have been slighly higher and small guilds would have been slightly lower.

The theory was correct to apply decay on a per account basis, it just wasn't applied right.

Except that this "correct theory" incentivizes kicking any player that earns less than the average renown per player of all other players (down to 6), as well as every player that doesn't meet their personal renown decay. Which is exactly the situation this change was implemented to fix. Without changing the way that activity is calculated, this puts us right back where we were: A system where the only way for large guilds to advance is to cut their least active players.

The old system incentivized reducing the guild to only the highest renown earners. That didn't happen across the board because there are other reasons than pure advancement that people form and join guilds. The new system incentivizes adding people to any guild that doesn't give up more from the size bonus than they gain from having an additional renown earner. While this is not the most fair possible system, it is one that incentivizes inclusion, rather than exclusion.

[slarden]

Except that this "correct theory" incentivizes kicking any player that earns less than the average renown per player of all other players (down to 6), as well as every player that doesn't meet their personal renown decay. Which is exactly the situation this change was implemented to fix. Without changing the way that activity is calculated, this puts us right back where we were: A system where the only way for large guilds to advance is to cut their least active players.

The old system incentivized reducing the guild to only the highest renown earners. That didn't happen across the board because there are other reasons than pure advancement that people form and join guilds. The new system incentivizes adding people to any guild that doesn't give up more from the size bonus than they gain from having an additional renown earner. While this is not the most fair possible system, it is one that incentivizes inclusion, rather than exclusion.

And you can get the exact same benefit by eliminating decay entirely. Nobody has still given a reason why decay is necessary. If the formula can't be applied fairly due to a perceived "kicking incentive", it should be elminated altogether.

The problem isn't solved for your guild because the formula was changed, it's solved because decay is lowered. If decay was fixed and it was fixed at the exact same decay your guild previously had you would be complaining regardless of how it was calculated.

High decay is the real issue here, not the formula.

[Artos_Fabril]

The problem isn't solved for your guild because the formula was changed, it's solved because decay is lowered. If decay was fixed and it was fixed at the exact same decay your guild previously had you would be complaining regardless of how it was calculated.

Except that locked decay, even at a higher level, would still be an incentive to add additional people to share the burden. Small guilds concerned about losing players to large guilds would be in even worse shape, because those guilds would *only* be able to advance by recruiting more active players than they had previously.

Currently, the vast majority of guilds, large and small, are able to advance, although small guilds above level 70 are more likely to get stuck in a level-decay-level loop, which could be fixed entirely by not having ransack set in until the second level is gained in a day.

Sure, for about the 20th time in this thread, I'm all for eliminating decay entirely. I can't tell you why it's there. What I can tell you is that Turbine put it in, and then left it in, and has never indicated a glimmer of intent to eliminate it completely. So either the numbers they have indicate that they benefit from keeping it, or they are for some other reason wedded to it, or if we're lucky, they turn around and drop it completely on or before U17.

However, in the absences of direct communication, all we have to go by is past precedent, regardless of the extremely small size of the data set. Decay was implemented, and retained, and there's not been any indication it will go away.

At least now you're trying to offer solutions that take the facts as we know them into account. you proposal would benefit from refinement. Include a way to calculate activity that doesn't punish guilds for accepting casual players, and a way to calculate decay that doesn't incentivize kicking out player who would otherwise be welcome in a guild, and we might have a winner.

[Blue100000005]

When people were arguing about guilds, i thought many were like mine. Guess I was wrong

Currently I am Lvl 34, with 23 active players, Myself being the most active by far.

I refuse to boot players due to activity.

That said, no one is willing to join me. WHY? Ship buffs...

While my decay is not much at all right now, IF IF IF i am able to grind out guild levels, and not able to get new members (everyone DESERVES a lvl 70+guild remember) then i will have to live at my computer to make these crazy decay rates at higher levels.

[Chaos000]

..the real issue here is getting stuck at a level. If guilds were advancing even at a slow pace everything is fine. Once stagnation happens it is frustrating for guilds of all sizes. Stagnation happens because decay is just too high at those levels for people that aren't hardcore. The curve shouldn't be so high until after 85.

Under the old system (decay/account) getting stuck at a level could only be overcome by removing less active members so that the more active members do not have to continue to make up for them.

Because each additional member only added to decay, a new member falling under the less active member category becomes an additional burden for the more active members to assume.

This would only be compounded for guilds of smaller sizes because the more active members would most often experience a reduction in guild renown size bonus.. guilds that could expect an increase in the guild renown bonus would more likely be better off creating a dummy account to artificially inflate the guild size to maximize the renown bonus.


Under the current system (decay/level) getting stuck at a level can be overcome without removing less active members because even if an account got 5 renown in a month, because each additional member no longer adds a per/account decay in fact any renown they gain is "extra" to overcome the previously "stuck at a level" phenomena, there is still benefit to retaining all current members in guild. Removal of less active members nets no reduction in decay/active member except for guilds that rely on their guild size bonus.

It's an incentive for growth. Adding a dummy account for the sake of artificially inflating the guild size is now rendered ineffective. Guilds that choose to not increase in size will find themselves "stuck", Guilds that were previously "stuck" and continue to be will find that each additional player will eliminate the frustration of non-rank progression.

[Dandonk]

It would tell us that in fact you ARE gaining. But since you are not running much, you cannot gain. No change in the system can fix that aspect of your problem. More active members would. Even if decay is lowered, you still have to be active to gain renown. You do not have a decay problem, you have an activity problem.

And renown has always been a measure, and dependant, of member activity.

But since we are not gaining, what does it tell you? Check back at 5 pm EST or whatever it was today and see for yourself.

As I said, it tells you nothing.

Decay USED to be solely an activity measurement. Now, if you're in a large guild, you are free to be a lot less active than a small guild - and have the same or higher renown gain. That is not fair, to me.

[Dandonk]

It's an incentive for growth. Adding a dummy account for the sake of artificially inflating the guild size is now rendered ineffective. Guilds that choose to not increase in size will find themselves "stuck", Guilds that were previously "stuck" and continue to be will find that each additional player will eliminate the frustration of non-rank progression.

So it's OK to force social-style changes on others? Really?

The original system was designed to make small and large guilds equally viable. I think that is a good goal. Why should social choices affect in-game effects?

[Artos_Fabril]

So it's OK to force social-style changes on others? Really?

The original system was designed to make small and large guilds equally viable. I think that is a good goal. Why should social choices affect in-game effects?

An incentive to include more players, while not ideal, is vastly preferable to an incentive to exclude players.
Every choice has trade-offs.

If you can think of a better system, please describe it. We've been assured that the devs are still reading, whether or not they're responding.

[Dandonk]

An incentive to include more players, while not ideal, is vastly preferable to an incentive to exclude players.
Every choice has trade-offs.

If you can think of a better system, please describe it. We've been assured that the devs are still reading, whether or not they're responding.

Well, getting rid of decay entirely would work.

But really, there have been an enourmous amount of suggestions already, and I can't be bothered to go back and find them all.

I'm glad you're confident they're still looking in here. I'm not. It's been months without a single word.

I'm glad you think the current system is better. And it is - for you.
For some small guilds, though, the new system has led to people being poached from the already small guilds, so yeah, I don't think it's good at all.

[Blue100000005]

Why not get rid of ship buffs? that would be a good w2ay to remove the level and decay issue.

That would also allow for a smaller guild to finally start growing. Never will a guild like mine get to a level they can compete if there is another guild with higher buffs that will allow them to join.


On a side note, YES by not kicking members that are less active then me i do take penalties to my guild renown. Either be a bad person and kick them and wait 14 days, or welcome them when they do decide to return.

I would also like to see the renown loss of a player leaving a guild be removed. Some people have joined me, then quit once they were able to join a higher guild, taking some of the renown with them. That seems unfair twice, a bigger guild cannibalizing my guild, then people leaving and taking away from the guild with renown.

[slarden]

Under the old system (decay/account) getting stuck at a level could only be overcome by removing less active members so that the more active members do not have to continue to make up for them.

Because each additional member only added to decay, a new member falling under the less active member category becomes an additional burden for the more active members to assume.

This would only be compounded for guilds of smaller sizes because the more active members would most often experience a reduction in guild renown size bonus.. guilds that could expect an increase in the guild renown bonus would more likely be better off creating a dummy account to artificially inflate the guild size to maximize the renown bonus.


Under the current system (decay/level) getting stuck at a level can be overcome without removing less active members because even if an account got 5 renown in a month, because each additional member no longer adds a per/account decay in fact any renown they gain is "extra" to overcome the previously "stuck at a level" phenomena, there is still benefit to retaining all current members in guild. Removal of less active members nets no reduction in decay/active member except for guilds that rely on their guild size bonus.

It's an incentive for growth. Adding a dummy account for the sake of artificially inflating the guild size is now rendered ineffective. Guilds that choose to not increase in size will find themselves "stuck", Guilds that were previously "stuck" and continue to be will find that each additional player will eliminate the frustration of non-rank progression.

As someone in a small guild I can say you are completely wrong on your assertions about small guilds. Try buliding a guild from level 1 with a small group of people and you will understand how it really works.

We heard from many small guilds in this thread and the common themes were (1) decay is too high and (2) gulids shouldn't be forced to recruit as most small guilds are small by choice

If someone is in a small guild and now being told their solution is to recruit - it is only going to lead to frustration not recruitment. More symptoms of the underlying problem that decay is too high. Sure a few guilds may do this, but it makes absolutely no sense to force guilds to recruit that don't want to recruit.

The only reason to add dummy accounts is if you are below 6 ( which many do) or to dual box (as I am now doing for certain runs based on some good advice I received). The system did nothing to change this and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with this. That is the real reason you see many guilds of 6- not because they don't want to add - but because they add dummy accounts to get to 6 and in reality are below 6.

My guild will not poach from other guilds period. That is the only way for our guild to grow out of this problem and we we won't do it. Most people running end game content are in a guild or not interested in a guild.

The main problem small guilds have is not recruiting new players to the guild because they are almost always more active than the average guildy, it is that an existing guildy has real life time issues come up and becomes less active - logging in once a month or so just to keep their account active and chat.

I almost always see a short term boost when we add a new member. I don't keep absolute track of it but I believe our guild is up one person and down one person (that went inacive) since this change. This ends up being a net positive because the person has been less active than average for quite some time and new people are usually more active than average.

With that said, we add people because it's natural not to optimize guild level. Adding people to optimize level seems as wrong as booting people to optimize level to me. Guilds are a grouping function and not a competion. but as someone else pointed out, all guilds want to advance and not stagnate. Small guilds have much the same issue with frustration with stagnation that we were feeling this summer when people were real busy with their real life.