Guild Renown Changes

[Nestroy]

When you speak of easy... among the guilds that have hit the maximum rank under the old system, how many fairly active 200 account guilds were among them?

Even if they used the same number or more pots as a smaller guild they could not hope to achieve enough to advance to the maximum rank.

You are well aware, of course, that I never ever wrote against changing this for bigger guilds, mind you!

I do not think that returning to the old system is any viable option. Nor does the overwhelmingly vast majority of this community, as far as I know.

I never expected my guild to reach lv. 100 anyway, not under the old system, nor under the new. I would be happy with reaching and maintaining lv. 85 and the best guild ship. Now, with the bigger renown decay for small guilds, the best I can hope for at current decay rates is lv. 77 - lv 79. So of course I advocate for change again. May I remind you that under the old system I would have eventually reached lv. 85 with my guild.

I think the new system benefits big guilds and big guilds only. If Turbine wants to do away with small guilds, they could at least tell us to get lost and stop posting in this thread. But as long as small guilding is an option, of course I will campaign for better conditions for small guilders.

They changed the system once. They can do again.

[smatt]

So......

If 3 people go in a beat a raid, those 3 people had to work much harder than if there had been 12 people (I know I know you're so awesome you could've soloed it , go tell your grandma about it) Getting back to the story.... Each of those darned big group of 12 get a chance at raid loot..... That's 12 chances at raid loot..... Those big group bastards, they get more chances then the VERY hard working samll group of 3 that only gets 3 chances at raid loot. I mean heck, shouldn't the group of 3 get the same amount of chances at raid loot as the big lazy group? I mean why shiould the group of 3 be penalized for making their very own social choice of beign a small group!


It's just not fair! I demand fair!

I wish I could remember where I read the Dev post talking about guild level and the fact they never intended for every guild to be able to attain lvl 100.

There needs to be a minor adjustment or 2 to the syestem. But small guilds already recieve a large bonus in comphensation for their PERSONAL choice of being a small guild. Giveing them the whole cake isn't the way to go....

[Dandonk]

This is a social option, purely. I don't see why you think this should influence in-game power. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

No, they never intended everyone to reach glevel 100. But with the new system, most large guilds will. So I don't think small guilds should be left out, since that part of the design has obviously changed.

[Hendrik]

So we have to work harder overcoming decay AND levelling?

Sorry, I don't think that's fair. And neither does Turbine, from their comments. So thanks for your input, but no.

Your 'hard' work is supplimented with your size bonus.

It will take a small guild longer to level then a large because you do not have the numbers, it is really that easy. Unless you want to change it so that ALL guilds level at the same rate, and that would again, go against your desire for fairness.

[Hendrik]

This is a social option, purely. I don't see why you think this should influence in-game power. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

No, they never intended everyone to reach glevel 100. But with the new system, most large guilds will. So I don't think small guilds should be left out, since that part of the design has obviously changed.

Looking at the leaderboards, they are not left out.

At least the ones that are active and running content. Maybe you should again, get more active and run content instead of not being active and not running content.

But if you wish to gain levels by not playing the game....

[Dandonk]

Looking at the leaderboards, they are not left out.

At least the ones that are active and running content. Maybe you should again, get more active and run content instead of not being active and not running content.

But if you wish to gain levels by not playing the game....

Look at Vanshilar's numbers, they tell a wider story.

Why should I have to be more active, simply because I'm in a small guild? It makes no sense.

[smatt]

Look at Vanshilar's numbers, they tell a wider story.

Why should I have to be more active, simply because I'm in a small guild? It makes no sense.

If you spent 1/2 the time playing as you do posting about being a persecuted small guild here on the forums... You WOULD be level 100

[smatt]

Since you seem to exactly know the reason why there has to be renown decay, please share the wonders of your insights with us humble idiots. Because we cannot see any reason there since the last change, except for wantonly giving small guilds the boot.

Who said any of that? So becauyse the system is no longer set up to ONLY favor small guilds... It's becaseu they want to get rid of them... OK.....

I would not call "Challenges" a free handouts for doing nothing.

I said EXACTLY the opposite.... Amazing...

Or else, I would like to call any quest that is not EE on a first life toon without uber gear a "free handout". E-N and H-N quests are laughably easy. Nonetheless i get full renown in lootlists and chests in H-N. I do not get much renown in lootlists from E-N. And I do feel to get even less in lootlists from E-E, for whatever reason. Perhaps the feeling comes from time/resources invested against loot. Perhaps there really is some hidden formula or I simply face plain bad luck. Whatever, fixing that would not be a "free handout" at all. Or alternatively, abolish any guild renown from any lootlist from any quest. And then let´s wait for the responses from users in the general forum...

What are you talking about? Completely honest question here.....

[theslimshady]

If you spent 1/2 the time playing as you do posting about being a persecuted small guild here on the forums... You WOULD be level 100

lol i am surprised this thread is still alive for some on here have resorted to cross-posting this stuff on almost any post that has a dev on it

decay only exsists currently to make sure a entire guild dosent go inactive and still keep its standing and the decay adjustment was already lowered to the lowest level possible to the smallest guild size allocated

[Hendrik]

Look at Vanshilar's numbers, they tell a wider story.

Why should I have to be more active, simply because I'm in a small guild? It makes no sense.

I keep saying more active because you said your not running much and not active as you have been in the past.


You cannot gain renown if you are not in content giving renown.

[Hendrik]

If you spent 1/2 the time playing as you do posting about being a persecuted small guild here on the forums... You WOULD be level 100

At least back to L85 and have everything the guild system has to offer.

[Nestroy]

lol i am surprised this thread is still alive for some on here have resorted to cross-posting this stuff on almost any post that has a dev on it

decay only exsists currently to make sure a entire guild dosent go inactive and still keep its standing and the decay adjustment was already lowered to the lowest level possible to the smallest guild size allocated

Ok, let´s assume for one second that the renown decay sytem serves the purpose to weed out the inactive guilds from the leader boards. Let´s talk about a high level guild going inactive completely. Let´s talk about a daily renown decayhit of 20k. It takes about 2 million renown to level up there. So it takes one hundret days for such an inactive guild to loose one level. At lv. 60 such a guild would need a loss of about 500k to loose one level and gets hit by about 5k. Hell, to loose ten guild levels it would take any guild about 3 years!!!

Obviously, guild renown decay in it´s current state is not an useful tool to weed out inactive guilds from the top.

Then again the question: Why renown decay when it it´s obviously not working WAI?

--------------------

For a chance, let´s ponder what Smatt said about the devs not wanting any and all guilds reaching level 100 eventually. This certainly held truth for the old system. For very big guilds it was only a mathematical possibility to reach the highest levels, not a pratical one. And for most small guilds with only mediocre activity it has been impossible to even reach the hights of most big guilds.

This certainly changed now. Any guild eventually may reach lv. 100. All the guild has to do is to grow in size until mathematically there are enough active accounts to marginalize decay and to pour in renown steadily on a daily base.

So the argument of not wanting any and all guilds to eventually reach lv. 100 is moot now. Theoretically any and all guilds can reach lv. 100 eventually. Well, until mathematics kick in again. There is only a certain player base of X accounts on any given server. There is a fluctuation in accounts of Y (old accounts leaving, new ones entering the server) and of all the accounts from one server there are only Z accounts active. The player base from any server is expanding / shrinking (well, cancel out whatever you think is incorrect, it does not matter for the argument too much).
Now any guild can only get A % share from X. They can only expand by either using Y in their favor (a.k.a. "Korthos Army") or by recruting from Z. In an expanding server any guild eventually would get a chance to get big. But what if the server populations are shrinking?
Practically some of the actively recruiting big guilds do recruit from Z only, without farming from Y. So they canibalize actively the smaller and less leveled guilds. So the smaller guilds now have even more decay than ever and parallel they do loose their player base due to large guilds getting even larger.

This then contradicts any earlier posts from the devs that they do not want to prefer any guild play style, not big, not small. Since the new system we have a clear change in policy, the devs now obviously are in favor of large guilds.

And do not use the "capitalism" argument now, please! In free capitalistic environmemts, there would not exist any decay, there would not exist any guild size bonus, there you would find a "free market" concept. Decay and bonus are clearly interventive measures by the devs to regulate the free market of guilding. Now they regulated in favor of big guilds. This clearly is a violation of the free market concept. Of course this benefits big guilds. Any moves by big guilds are good business, no problem with that. But talking about "that´s the way it is in Capitalism" is plain wrong. In rigged markets there is no free capitalism. This is crony-ism at it´s best - the big guilds get all the benefits, the small guilds get even more decay. While this may reflect the current real life market systems perfectly well, it is away from free markets as far as earth is from the moon.

-------------

Then again, what purpose does the renown decay system still serve?

Weeding out inactive guilds - too slow. Not likely.

Barring most guilds from eventually reaching lv. 100 - depending on theory versus applicability, this now changed in favor of big guilds. So theoretically any guild may reach lv. 100 now eventually by growing. Therefore the argument is theoretically dead. Practically only big guilds and a very few hyper active guilds will reach any significant guild levels now. So practically this bans the vast majority of guilds from ever reaching any significant guild level. Attaining the best ship at lv. 85 now practically is impossible except for guilds of 100+ active accounts or the hyperactives.

So all that is left the renown decay is useful for is barring small guilds from prospering. Arguments see above.

[Blue100000005]

I would also suggest that House P and J buffs be more relevant by extending the duration by an additional 30 min to make it in-par with ship buffs for small guilds that perhaps do not have enough space on their ship to have all the buffs.

Out of all the buffs the + %xp buff was the only one that I've seen purchased (and I myself have purchased) on a regular basis with Turbine points. If all buffs become instantly available, the xp buff should remain based on rank to provide an incentive for guild rank advancement and to continue to make Turbine money and benefit the bottom line.

i can agree with that, people regardless of how much they whine, do not NEED other buffs.
XP is the only one i care about, and the only one that a character cant do on his own. I will still level my guild for XP, that said though, that will still divert more newer players to larger guilds over smaller ones trying to grow.

[Blue100000005]

There needs to be a minor adjustment or 2 to the syestem. But small guilds already recieve a large bonus in comphensation for their PERSONAL choice of being a small guild. Giveing them the whole cake isn't the way to go....

Feels like im ignored most of the time...

I TRY TO RECRUIT!!!!! Not a choice about only having 24 accounts. People see these bigger guilds and hold out for them. NOTHING i can do to change that.

[Chaos000]

You are well aware, of course, that I never ever wrote against changing this for bigger guilds, mind you!

I do not think that returning to the old system is any viable option. Nor does the overwhelmingly vast majority of this community, as far as I know.

Being that the old system was a decay per individual account that made less active accounts apply an additional burden to more active accounts... I agree that returning to this system should not be a viable option.

However, the decay (when divided per account) will (when not factoring guild size bonus) always decline for guilds with each additional member. If this is perceived to be "not fair" -- any change that associates a burden to add or retain a less active account is returning to the old system.

For example: increasing guild size bonus. If the guild size bonus is high enough, a guild could benefit more by not adding or booting a less active player that could not reliably make up the difference.

I don't see an issue with renown ransack not applying until the 2nd level for small and medium guilds.

I think the new system benefits big guilds and big guilds only. If Turbine wants to do away with small guilds, they could at least tell us to get lost and stop posting in this thread. But as long as small guilding is an option, of course I will campaign for better conditions for small guilders.

The new system benefits bigger guilds. It's not between small to big. It's between guilds with a variation in size. A guild of 400 is disadvantaged vs. a guild of 450 for example. If we want to argue that guilds under a certain size are unable to hit and maintain the maximum rank, you look at the leaderboards to identify the smallest guild to have reached the maximum rank and provide an appropriate bonus to guilds of smaller size. If guilds over a certain size are hitting the maximum rank without an issue (i.e. hitting renown ransack EVERY DAY) then you set the bar a bit higher for them.

My current argument is that it doesn't take THAT MANY motivated players to allow a guild to hit maximum rank. If a guild of 6 highly active players could reach 100, a guild of 200 composed entirely of less active players with the same 6 highly active players could also reach 100. (If the less active players do not make up for loss of the renown size bonus the 6 highly active players will have a harder time, if the less active players more than made up for the loss of the renown size bonus the 6 highly active players will have an easier time)

[Nestroy]

(...)My current argument is that it doesn't take THAT MANY motivated players to allow a guild to hit maximum rank. If a guild of 6 highly active players could reach 100, a guild of 200 composed entirely of less active players with the same 6 highly active players could also reach 100. (If the less active players do not make up for loss of the renown size bonus the 6 highly active players will have a harder time, if the less active players more than made up for the loss of the renown size bonus the 6 highly active players will have an easier time)

I would argue a little more different: Now a guild of 200 less active players will eventually reach lv. 100. If they have 6 highly motivated players as well, these add to the speed the guild reaches lv. 100. But not to the fact that they eventually will. Of course having 6 highly motivated players and 200 less active players add to the fun.

Whereas the same 6 highly motivated players now do get extra renown decay under the new system. So the small 6 player guild now gets the boot.

[Artos_Fabril]

Whereas the same 6 highly motivated players now do get extra renown decay under the new system. So the small 6 player guild now gets the boot.

Except this is explicitly not true. They get increased ransack penalties after the first level in a day, which we've pretty much all agreed is BS and hurts all guilds and shouldn't have set in until the second level gained in a day. But they're highly motivated and getting a 300% bonus to renown, so are highly unlikely to get stuck in a level-decay-level loop.

[slarden]

Except this is explicitly not true. They get increased ransack penalties after the first level in a day, which we've pretty much all agreed is BS and hurts all guilds and shouldn't have set in until the second level gained in a day. But they're highly motivated and getting a 300% bonus to renown, so are highly unlikely to get stuck in a level-decay-level loop.

The assumption that "6" was the ideal number for a guild under the old system is blatantly false.

A guild of 6 was getting renown equivalent to 24 people and receiving decay equal to 20 (a 20% unfair advantage under the old system). A guild of 20 was getting renown equal to 41 with the bonus and getting decay for 30 (a 37% unfair advantage). 6 was a popular number because if a guild had less then 6 they could add a ftp account to bring it up to 6. Under the old system it was always advantageous to grow beyond 6 if the goal was solely to maximize the benefit of the flawed decay formula. There are reasons guild remain small besides trying to maximize the renown bonus, namely it's a personal play style choice. If you penalize a style of playing over time you will eventually have less of those players.

I haven't bothered to determine where the ideal # was under the old system, but it definitely wasn't 6.

Although the old system had it's issues, I think the current system is also problematic for many of the same reasons - it favors a guild size but even more dramatically than the prior system. As people leave small guilds to go to large guilds the lfms and open groups will decline and be replaced by more guild-only parties and those parties are more likely to be completely filled. The ones that are left that care about their guild level will need to earn renown more quickly than other guilds to combat decay which means more soloing. The high level small guilds have always been fine and will continue to be, but the vast majority of guilds with 10 or less have it more difficult than it used to be and it was never easy to combat decay.

I don't think having less people available for pugs and open groups is a good for the game either. Having a viable thriving community of small guilds is just as important as having a viable thriving community of large guilds to DDO.

DDO can help out the small guild community very simply by changing the fixed account decay multiplier from 20 to 10. The only effect is reduced decay for all guilds - it doesn't contradict any of the reasons Turbine made this change and would give small guilds some needed and welcome decay relief that other guilds received.

[Chaos000]

I would argue a little more different: Now a guild of 200 less active players will eventually reach lv. 100. If they have 6 highly motivated players as well, these add to the speed the guild reaches lv. 100. But not to the fact that they eventually will. Of course having 6 highly motivated players and 200 less active players add to the fun.

Whereas the same 6 highly motivated players now do get extra renown decay under the new system. So the small 6 player guild now gets the boot.

A guild capitalizing on the maximum renown bonus (I always thought it was 6? I apologize if I was wrong. I understand that a guild of 1 would often create dummy accounts to artificially boost to the maximum renown bonus) limited to only highly motivated players *could* still not eventually reach lv./rank 100.

A guild of 200 *could* eventually reach lv./rank 100. A guild of a far smaller number *could* eventually reach lv./rank 100. If all 200 had limited activity (bank toon, multi guild alt, rp character) they could STILL decline in level. They would arguably have theoretically an *easier* time than any smaller counterparts and *harder* time than any larger counterparts. Will eventually may require even a guild of 200 to further increase in size if the average guild activity is so low that they stagnate before hitting lv./rank 100.

[Chaos000]

Although the old system had it's issues, I think the current system is also problematic for many of the same reasons - it favors a guild size but even more dramatically than the prior system. As people leave small guilds to go to large guilds the lfms and open groups will decline and be replaced by more guild-only parties and those parties are more likely to be completely filled. The ones that are left that care about their guild level will need to earn renown more quickly than other guilds to combat decay which means more soloing. The high level small guilds have always been fine and will continue to be, but the vast majority of guilds with 10 or less have it more difficult than it used to be and it was never easy to combat decay.

What I'm reading is that expanding a guild to 11 is too much work.

The current system benefits players with limited activity by no longer causing them to be a burden. Under the old system even if you convinced some friends to come over and play the game, you would get resistance from your guild to add that friend unless they intended to maintain a strict minimum level of activity. I convinced friends that were playing other MMO's to play this one. They lasted about a week and left due to not being able to join the established guild I was already a part of.

Making this more friendly makes it beneficial for new players to be asked to JOIN and RETURN to the game. More players, more lfms.

I'm ok with the decay multiplier being reduced, renown ransack not occurring until the 2nd level gained. So long as less active accounts do not go back to increasing the burden for more active accounts to shoulder AND there is no benefit associated with removing a less active account.