Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

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.

This is actually an excellent point. Despite what others say ship buffs are important to people. When we were a new guild we had people leave and tell us they liked our guild but wanted the buffs.

We hear alot of people say level is not imporant to them. Since that is the case perhaps we should elminate the leveling system entirely and let guilds buy whatever ships and buffs they want. That would be a good way for Turbine to monetize the guild system without a heavy investment. There will always be new people that want to start a new guild and are willing to buy astral shards to do so. I have been playing Star Wars some with the guildy that left ddo and there are no advantages at all given to players based on their guild. I like that system much better.

Perhaps require "time served" for ship requirements rather than net renown based on a broken system.

[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.

I don't believe so. I think Stagnation causes guids to get frustrated and try and optimize level. Those same gulids wouldn't be booting people if they were advancing. If decay is elminated or reduced enough to matter there is no incentive to boot or many of the other negative behaviors associated with decay. Decay is a problem because it forces people to earn renown faster since it's a timed daily event. If they can't earn renown fast enough, they move backwards.

Let's get rid of decay or reduce it enough to matter so that All guilds can be freed from the negative aspects of decay.

I don't think a "fixed" decay per level is the only solution or even a good solution, but if we think this is the way to go why don't we change the formula from a fixed value of 20 accounts to a fixed value of 10 accounts as a start? What would be the harm in doing that since the choice of 20 was competely arbitrary anyhow.

[Dandonk]

I don't believe so. I think Stagnation causes guids to get frustrated and try and optimize level. Those same gulids wouldn't be booting people if they were advancing. If decay is elminated or reduced enough to matter there is no incentive to boot or many of the other negative behaviors associated with decay. Decay is a problem because it forces people to earn renown faster since it's a timed daily event. If they can't earn renown fast enough, they move backwards.

Let's get rid of decay or reduce it enough to matter so that All guilds can be freed from the negative aspects of decay.

I don't think a "fixed" decay per level is the only solution or even a good solution, but if we think this is the way to go why don't we change the formula from a fixed value of 20 accounts to a fixed value of 10 accounts as a start? What would be the harm in doing that since the choice of 20 was competely arbitrary anyhow.

I think you are right. If guilds are advancing at a fair pace anyway, I doubt they'll look into whether they'd advance a tiny bit faster if they booted somebody.

And indeed, the 20 multiplier on decay seems completely arbitrary, so why not reduce it to 10 or 5 or something while Turbine is working out the final system?

[Blue100000005]

This is actually an excellent point. Despite what others say ship buffs are important to people. When we were a new guild we had people leave and tell us they liked our guild but wanted the buffs.

We hear alot of people say level is not imporant to them. Since that is the case perhaps we should elminate the leveling system entirely and let guilds buy whatever ships and buffs they want. That would be a good way for Turbine to monetize the guild system without a heavy investment. There will always be new people that want to start a new guild and are willing to buy astral shards to do so. I have been playing Star Wars some with the guildy that left ddo and there are no advantages at all given to players based on their guild. I like that system much better.

Perhaps require "time served" for ship requirements rather than net renown based on a broken system.

I can second having all buffs available regardless of level. That way there is no advantage to join a higher level guild, save pride of a big number at your name. But even that being said, you have TP being used for ship buffs and i will NOT pay for them.

Eliminating renown decay is always a good idea, but that will not fix the stigma placed on lower level guilds that are trying as much as they can to expand.

[Gremmlynn]

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?

No. All guilds got this change because the practice of booting casuals in order to advance was seem as detrimental to the game.

This change wasn't made to help large guilds advance, that was just a side effect of it. It was made to take away the incentive for all guilds to boot less active members.

As far as blaming small guilds for doing the same? No, but any suggestion I see that I feel will give any guild an incentive to boot members in order to take advantage of, I will point out.

[slarden]

No. All guilds got this change because the practice of booting casuals in order to advance was seem as detrimental to the game.

This change wasn't made to help large guilds advance, that was just a side effect of it. It was made to take away the incentive for all guilds to boot less active members.

As far as blaming small guilds for doing the same? No, but any suggestion I see that I feel will give any guild an incentive to boot members in order to take advantage of, I will point out.

Very few guilds actually did this and there never has a been a problem with people getting into guilds. I am TRing right now and I see the same thing I always saw in the harbor. Numerous start-up guilds recruiting heavily and one large guild recruiting.

If one guild wouldn't take the person in another guild at the same level was always willing to do so.

What was the ultimate outcome for the people booted? Obviously it varied, but all had a chance to join a guild for sure. Many joined small guilds and found a happy home. Now those same people have 10x more decay they must cover then people in the guild that booted them.

We've primarily suggested eliminating decay or reducing the fixed value of 20 to 10 for the account multiplier. Those do nothing to promote booting. Do you support either of those changes?

[Dandonk]

No. All guilds got this change because the practice of booting casuals in order to advance was seem as detrimental to the game.

This change wasn't made to help large guilds advance, that was just a side effect of it. It was made to take away the incentive for all guilds to boot less active members.

As far as blaming small guilds for doing the same? No, but any suggestion I see that I feel will give any guild an incentive to boot members in order to take advantage of, I will point out.

Wasn't that their concern? That they felt like they needed to boot people to have a decent renown gain (or at least not loss)?

Now small guilds feel left out and cannibalized for members. I think that is a fair thing to voice our concerns over (just like it was for large guilds before, for their issues).

I really don't think we deserve the kind of response we are getting here.

[Artos_Fabril]

We've primarily suggested eliminating decay or reducing the fixed value of 20 to 10 for the account multiplier. Those do nothing to promote booting. Do you support either of those changes?

Obviously, I can't speak for Gremmlynn, but I would support either of those ideas. I think the complete elimination of decay is less likely, based on the fact that they could seemingly have turned it off as easily as setting it to 20 and chose not to do so.

I still think that changing the way an account is determined to be "active" would be beneficial as well.

[Dandonk]

Obviously, I can't speak for Gremmlynn, but I would support either of those ideas. I think the complete elimination of decay is less likely, based on the fact that they could seemingly have turned it off as easily as setting it to 20 and chose not to do so.

You may be right, though I still do not really understand why Turbine won't do this.

I still think that changing the way an account is determined to be "active" would be beneficial as well.

Very much so! If decay isn't completely done away with, this is definitely a point I'd love to see included in any new system.

[Gremmlynn]

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.

Taking a step back and looking at things from another perspective I think I found the reason decay exists. It also fits in with what I remember about guilds I was in that started booting players. It looks to me that decay exists to keep guilds in the level 50-55 range where they have access to the mid level ships with the right number of hook points for stat resist shrines, 20 resists and +1 stat shrines...for plat and 30 resist and +2 stat shrines for TPs. The addition of small guild bonus likely skewed this, but I think that was their goal in setting up the system this way. It allows overachievers to serve as an example of how getting beyond that point is possible, but keeps the majority in the range where they are spending real money for the high end buffs perpetually, with access to the hookpoints needed to slot them.

I don't think the even considered players would resort to booting less active players in order to get around this, so have been trying to adjust a system that was never meant to be fair to anyone into something that is fair to everyone. With about as much success as one would expect.

[Dandonk]

Taking a step back and looking at things from another perspective I think I found the reason decay exists. It also fits in with what I remember about guilds I was in that started booting players. It looks to me that decay exists to keep guilds in the level 50-55 range where they have access to the mid level ships with the right number of hook points for stat resist shrines, 20 resists and +1 stat shrines...for plat and 30 resist and +2 stat shrines for TPs. The addition of small guild bonus likely skewed this, but I think that was their goal in setting up the system this way. It allows overachievers to serve as an example of how getting beyond that point is possible, but keeps the majority in the range where they are spending real money for the high end buffs perpetually, with access to the hookpoints needed to slot them.

I don't think the even considered players would resort to booting less active players in order to get around this, so have been trying to adjust a system that was never meant to be fair to anyone into something that is fair to everyone. With about as much success as one would expect.

But since decay is now no longer serving that purpose - at least for large guilds - why should small guilds still suffer under it?

[Hendrik]

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.

Again with the fair.

It's not fair to you and your Guild thaty they are not playing and leaving YOU with high decay. Lower decay rates and it will still not be fair to you because they are still not playing.

You screwed up when you let the truth of your issue slip out for all to read. You cannot overcome decay because you are not running much and nobody is online to help you. To overcome decay YOU MUST PLAY.

No change in decay will fix your issue. Getting your guild to play the game will.

Get them to play, get to L85 and get the last ship available. Then you have EVERYTHING available to guilds. After 85 there is no point to go any higher. Even if you drop down to 84, the ONLY thing you loose out on is one resist shine.

But you still need to get your guild to play and run stuff.


Again, you do not have a decay problem, you have an activity problem. Fix that and the other will end.

[Gremmlynn]

Wasn't that their concern? That they felt like they needed to boot people to have a decent renown gain (or at least not loss)?

Now small guilds feel left out and cannibalized for members. I think that is a fair thing to voice our concerns over (just like it was for large guilds before, for their issues).

I really don't think we deserve the kind of response we are getting here.

I think Turbine looking at it more from the perspective of the people being booted than those doing the booting. They, after all have the numbers available to see what % of players leaving the game were recently booted from a guild. It's the kind of trend companies keep track of.

[Dandonk]

Again with the fair.

It's not fair to you and your Guild thaty they are not playing and leaving YOU with high decay. Lower decay rates and it will still not be fair to you because they are still not playing.

You screwed up when you let the truth of your issue slip out for all to read. You cannot overcome decay because you are not running much and nobody is online to help you. To overcome decay YOU MUST PLAY.

No change in decay will fix your issue. Getting your guild to play the game will.

Get them to play, get to L85 and get the last ship available. Then you have EVERYTHING available to guilds. After 85 there is no point to go any higher. Even if you drop down to 84, the ONLY thing you loose out on is one resist shine.

But you still need to get your guild to play and run stuff.


Again, you do not have a decay problem, you have an activity problem. Fix that and the other will end.

But why is activity only a requirement for small guilds?

I must play more to overcome decay - sure, I guess. But there's not nearly the same requirement for large guilds.

That is not fair, as admitted by Turbine, too.

[Dandonk]

I think Turbine looking at it more from the perspective of the people being booted than those doing the booting. They, after all have the numbers available to see what % of players leaving the game were recently booted from a guild. It's the kind of trend companies keep track of.

And now they can look at it from the perspective of people getting left behind, and stopping to play because of it.

[Gremmlynn]

Obviously, I can't speak for Gremmlynn, but I would support either of those ideas. I think the complete elimination of decay is less likely, based on the fact that they could seemingly have turned it off as easily as setting it to 20 and chose not to do so.

I still think that changing the way an account is determined to be "active" would be beneficial as well.

I agree that either of those would be beneficial to both players in general and to guilds. The question is whether it in some way wouldn't be beneficial to Turbine, or at least seem so to someone trying to support the mechanic they implemented.

[slarden]

I agree that either of those would be beneficial to both players in general and to guilds. The question is whether it in some way wouldn't be beneficial to Turbine, or at least seem so to someone trying to support the mechanic they implemented.

If the fixed acct size was changed from 20 to 10 a level 60 guild of 10 people or less that was previously stuck at level 60 would gain 1 level in a full year (or possibly 2 depending how close they were to 61). I fail to see how this would jeaopordize anything for Turbine.

Having people frustrated because their guild is stuck at a level while other guilds that were previously stuck can gain 10+ levels in a few months is probably a much more realistic problem to consider.

[Gremmlynn]

But since decay is now no longer serving that purpose - at least for large guilds - why should small guilds still suffer under it?

Inertia? Someone still trying to justify the bonus they got for coming up with it? A counterpoint to the new ransack amount? Simple office politics?

Take your pick.

Any of those could also explain why it's taken them this long to do anything at all.

[Dandonk]

Inertia? Someone still trying to justify the bonus they got for coming up with it? A counterpoint to the new ransack amount? Simple office politics?

Take your pick.

Any of those could also explain why it's taken them this long to do anything at all.

Meh, you're probably right.

[Gremmlynn]

And now they can look at it from the perspective of people getting left behind, and stopping to play because of it.

Yep and it will probably take them another couple years to note the trend and come up with a solution that doesn't make the person who has to approve it look bad for approving the last "fix" that caused the problem.

Stormreach meets real world.