Guild Renown Changes

[Nestroy]

(...)I still think Chaos' idea is very vailid with activity/inactivity. And maybe in conjunction with a Size Bonus increase would pretty much eliminate all issues. All remaining would reside in the players hands - where it must be - to advance or not.

I think I could live with such a solution. Except it will not come any time soon. Because this would need some major coding without generating direct revenue (like companions do) and I am pretty sure this is what Turbine wants to avoid at all costs. So long as this renown decay issue does not directly hit pot sales or directly relates into loosing players all there will be is a quick & dirty fix like tweaking again with the renown decay formula, but no major programming effort, be it much needed and welcome or not.

[Hendrik]

But I want a system that at least holds some fairness for the small guilds as well.

As do I.

Turbine HAS the metrics. They know if things are working they way they want them to - at this point.

But for 'us' to debate a change that we like, we need Small Guilds to post renown numbers with all relevant information, like what twigzz did. Not go off what some other person did, or what a DEV said last year or longer.

Why are they not doing that? That is the hard core information that is needed.


Nestroy, would you post yours like what twigzz did?

[Chaos000]

I think I could live with such a solution. Except it will not come any time soon. Because this would need some major coding without generating direct revenue (like companions do) and I am pretty sure this is what Turbine wants to avoid at all costs. So long as this renown decay issue does not directly hit pot sales or directly relates into loosing players all there will be is a quick & dirty fix like tweaking again with the renown decay formula, but no major programming effort, be it much needed and welcome or not.

I can agree with this. quick and dirty fix as a stopgap would be fine.

In the current system when a player leaves or is booted they count against the size of the guild for a couple weeks

Extend the time to months and boost the guild size bonus by a significant amount to allow for guilds of smaller sizes to advance at a faster rate despite the 50% reduction in renown drops for the day after a level is gained. I'd rather that any added player to replace the booted player would not further increase the guild size but for the time being it should be sufficient.

[twigzz]

Ok here are my guilds numbers from the past few days. I'm gonna continue to record this too as these numbers are from 2 non casuals, our 3rd non casual has been away dealing with medical problems with his mother this week. I'm wondering what lvl we are gonna top off at.

Started Tuesday 12,864,709
Wed 12,928,810
Thurs 12,979,769
Fri 13,034,689
Sat 13,112,812


Sunday's are our 6 person static(if we all can make it), can't wait to see that number.

Our guild consists of 7 accounts. 3 non casual, 4 casual(logs maybe 2-3 times a week and does little with that time aside from static). We are lvl63 and should hit 64 tonight. We get a 285% bonus to renown.

Added Saturday's noon check. 3 of us ran for a few hours. We are/were doing Eveningstar stuff for epic XP. We hit lvl64, so ransack should kick in and make for **** numbers tomorrow(beer+fights on tv tonight so that should hurt too lol).

[DocBenway]

DocBenway, Artos Fabril, this might have been the formula at one point or the other. It definitively has not been the formula when I closely monitored the flow of guild renown into our guild during December 2011 and January 2012 where our guild was 7 active accounts strong. We were discussing strategies for our guild, if we should go for growth by actively recruiting or stay at the 7 active accounts. We decided the optimum number would be at about 10 - 14 accounts. 14 Accounts we hit in April 2012 finally.

I only started crunching numbers around January 2012 and can confirm hard coded minumum size of 10, making (10+10) X multiplier the minimum from February 2012 through today.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=362736

So I will not discuss with you if the 20 accounts is or was the WAI decay minimum any time before.

And neither will the Devs. Tada!

[Nestroy]

I only started crunching numbers around January 2012 and can confirm hard coded minumum size of 10, making (10+10) X multiplier the minimum from February 2012 through today.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=362736

I can remember that discussion. Back then there was the theory going that decay had a minimum of 10 accounts, so the decay had to go like this:
Active accounts - decay relevant accounts
1 - 10
2 - 10
3 - 10
4 - 10
5 - 10
6 - 10
7 - 10
8 - 10
9 - 10
10 - 10
11 - 11
12 -12
...

that would have been the formua max(accounts active, 10) as base.

I never could calculate the renown decay on wayfinder with that formula stated in the ddo wiki as well. I always had to calculate the base with 10+accounts active. WAI or not, i do not know.

So my calculations went like this:
Active accounts - decay relevant accounts
1 - 11
2 - 12
3 - 13
...

Now, we find the base for the decay to be set to 20. So either way, for guilds below 20 active accounts, this is not an improvement, but a severe blow. I do not know and frankly, I do not care on when the devs changed to the base for the formula 10 + (max(account size, 10)), but that´s now what we have, except account size is hard-set to something between 0 and 10. In start of 2012 we did not have the formula in place that way.

From feeling alone -no hard facts - I would suggest U14 as the point of change. There had been a lot of server downs at the beginning of U14 (double the decay anyway) and afterwards it felt to be much more decay daily - for me then explained by a higher guild level we achieved due to more members contributing. This U14 is also the point when many big guilds started to complain seriously. Well, basically getting 10 more accounts decay even for big guilds then in the old system ment a lot of decay more daily. No wonder the crescendo complaints started.

And for the current discussion this is moot anyway. The base is set to 20 accounts, fair or not.

I would love to see the big-guilders join us in our fight against an unfair system,. though. When it was unfair mostly to big guilds, we helped you as well. Now we need your help again - the system now is exceedingly unfair to small guilds. And it has been more fair in the past.

[Hendrik]

I would love to see the big-guilders join us in our fight against an unfair system,. though. When it was unfair mostly to big guilds, we helped you as well. Now we need your help again - the system now is exceedingly unfair to small guilds. And it has been more fair in the past.

I have and will continue to do so for those that do not continue to spin a broken record and are unwilling to change their tune.

We have evidence of very small guilds making 50k+/- a day on weekdays. Working for them just fine.

We need evidence, daily renown over the course of many days with all relevant information, from small guilds that are vocal for change. So far none are willing, which leaves some highly suspect - right or wrong. Saying things are not fair and proving it are two different things. One helps and one does not.

We know that some small guilds are not gaining due to the fact they are not an active guild and/or are not running content. Only a change in activity will help them.

[Dandonk]

The mechanics of the system are clear. The goals and intentions of the system are clear.

Turbine has admitted the current implementation is unfair to small guilds.

All I'm waiting for is word of what Turbine is going to do about it. And when.

[Gremmlynn]

It is common for any sized guild to have a small contingent of highly active 12 hour/day players providing the advancement of the guild. I am not against bonuses being boosted even if it may cause some highly active players to not want to add 1/month players due to a smaller bonus.

I am against this causing some highly active players to now want to boot 1/month existing members due to a larger bonus the guild would receive as a tradeoff. If the bonus is higher, even the moderately active players would also benefit from booting 1/month existing players.

Which is why it would be close enough. Though I don't know that every, or even more than a few, guilds have players that play that much. Or that there are all that many players that casual. But as long as the more common 3-4 hour/day players are better off keeping the 2-3 day/week players than not, the bonuses should be good enough to work in most situations I'd think.

[Gremmlynn]

+ Before change the decay formula was 10 + active accounts. So the decay for small guilds basically started at 11 and grew linearly from there on. Now it is 20 flat and many guilds now get more renown decay than under the old system.

No, it was documented as far as a year back and most likely has always been the case that guilds of under ten have been getting the same decay as guilds of 10. It seems 20 has always been the minimum multiplier so decay went up for nobody.

[Gremmlynn]

Most posters in this thread, yourself included, are fairly rational even when their arguments are repetitive. I apologize for again confusing you by addressing a specific poster below quoted text from that poster.Two amendments I would like to propose to the 100% penalty:
1) It should be an option when a player leaves a guild to leave on good terms, taking none of their earned renown with them, or leave on bad terms, taking 100%.
2) The 100% kick penalty should decrease after inactivity by 20% per month inactive. If a player hasn't logged in for 6 months, there should be no penalty to the guild for cleaning up the rolls under a new system, just as there is none under the current system.

I would say 0% good terms, 20% bad terms for voluntarily leaving would be better to avoid problems with players holding guilds hostage with threats of taking their renown and leaving.

Also 100% for booting dropping to 0% after 60 days should work well enough. I don't see any good reason to have a graduated scale for how much pain a guild is willing to endure to simply keep it's roster clean.

[twigzz]

I would like to see even more removal of in-game benefits associated with guild levels since the leveling system is not fair and likely never will be as long as we have any form of decay.

*Sigh*

You have made some good points in this thread slarden but comments like this is just ridiculous. If I can't have it than nobody should.....


I honestly don't think decay will go away, ever. Would I want it to? Sure why not, it'd make it easier for my guild to lvl lol. But I really don't care about guild level or the guildship and buffs. I guild to play with people that I like(or don't is some cases ) and setup play sessions.


I think it's quite obvious Turbine isn't going to say a word. I don't know why this thread is even open. It's like talking to a brickwall and I feel your guys pain in that aspect.

But time for food and DDO! I'm sure we dropped back to 63 last night as I know atleast 2 of us non casual's were drunk and off doing stupids things.

[Hendrik]

*Sigh*

You have made some good points in this thread slarden but comments like this is just ridiculous. If I can't have it than nobody should.....

Don't want to put in time and effort to gain benefits therefore everyone's benefits should be eliminated.

Time for someone to just take their toys and go home.

Thankfully the Guild System will never be reduced to the lowest common denominator.



Enjoy your lunch twigzz.

[Chaos000]

Which is why it would be close enough. Though I don't know that every, or even more than a few, guilds have players that play that much. Or that there are all that many players that casual. But as long as the more common 3-4 hour/day players are better off keeping the 2-3 day/week players than not, the bonuses should be good enough to work in most situations I'd think.

To re-iterate what I had said "I am against this causing some highly active players to now want to boot 1/month existing members due to a larger bonus the guild would receive as a tradeoff. If the bonus is higher, even the moderately active players would also benefit from booting 1/month existing players."

Remove the ability to gain higher bonuses by booting or extend out the time it takes for a booted player to no longer count as part of the guild size. (example: If the drop off time to account for reduction of guild size of a booted player went from 2 weeks to 6 months, it removes the incentive for any guild leader that does not have the patience to wait out a 6 month period.)

It would be better if during that time any players added do not add to that guild size, but if it would take too much effort to code, a quick fix is sufficient. Buffs should be quick to go away and not easily re-acquired as a protection to targeted actions against less active players.

Then I am all for raising the bonuses as high as turbine is willing to go. Top ranks, best buffs, largest ships is kind of the carrot at the end of a stick, make it too challenging and people will stop making the effort.

[Gremmlynn]

According to several people on Sarlona they are getting rid of guild augment slots which at least shows they are trying to lessen the in-game benefits of the guild system which is a good thing when we have a system that isn't fair.

I would like to see even more removal of in-game benefits associated with guild levels since the leveling system is not fair and likely never will be as long as we have any form of decay.

Rather than relying on rumors, go down (currently) one thread in this forum and see the dev posts about it.

Also, you seem to be under the impression the the guild leveling system was ever supposed to be fair.

IMO it's purpose was for the majority of players to get stuck at levels in which they didn't have access to the better amenities, but did have access to them via the store with a few overachievers able to fully succeed in order to perpetrate the myth that the system was fair and most of us had only our own shortcomings to blame for our lack. That said, it wasn't envisioned that kicking players would be a result of the mechanics, so this slap dash solution was added to counter that.

[Hendrik]

Rather than relying on rumors, go down (currently) one thread in this forum and see the dev posts about it.

Also, you seem to be under the impression the the guild leveling system was ever supposed to be fair.

And he is convientaly IGNORING that this chage is a direct result of the whole revamp of the Augment system as a whole and NOT due any precieved incongruity of the Guild system.

More reason not to take the poster seriously.

[slarden]

*Sigh*

You have made some good points in this thread slarden but comments like this is just ridiculous. If I can't have it than nobody should.....


I honestly don't think decay will go away, ever. Would I want it to? Sure why not, it'd make it easier for my guild to lvl lol. But I really don't care about guild level or the guildship and buffs. I guild to play with people that I like(or don't is some cases ) and setup play sessions.


I think it's quite obvious Turbine isn't going to say a word. I don't know why this thread is even open. It's like talking to a brickwall and I feel your guys pain in that aspect.

But time for food and DDO! I'm sure we dropped back to 63 last night as I know atleast 2 of us non casual's were drunk and off doing stupids things.

Actually I would like to see more guilds have an opportunity for these things not less.

I wasn't saying to get rid of these things - I was saying they shouldn't be tied to guild levels as I don't think the current system is balanced.

I already have access to large guild augment slots so I am not saying that because I can't get them. My concern all along has been more for the small casual guilds that are running low-level content with resists 10 while others have access to resist 30s. Regardless of what people say those things make a big difference and since I have been with the guild since level 1 I have seen the difference between having no resists, 10 resists, 20 resists and 30 resists. Even one person that commented that resists weren't that big of deal mentioned ship buffs in another thread a few days later when someone was complaining casters wouldn't pass buffs.

Enjoy your lunch. From one small guild to another, there are two ways to counter the gain-a-level drop-a-level cycle:

1) Play alot which your guild obviously does and is likely enough at your level.
2) Bank renown in the form of end rewards in quests where you can then take those immediately after leveling since renown drops will be roughly half for 24 hours. What you have to do is review your end reward before you gain a level and then take it after you level. If you don't view it until right after you gain a level you are still subject to the ransack. I have alot of alts so I am able to work on the cushion while we are working on our next level.

[slarden]

And he is convientaly IGNORING that this chage is a direct result of the whole revamp of the Augment system as a whole and NOT due any precieved incongruity of the Guild system.

More reason not to take the poster seriously.

I don't know the reason for the change I just view it as a positive development. However if they wanted to continue to provide in-game rewards tied to guild level they certainly could have done so with the new system.

I am glad they didn't.

You wish to discredit and convince people not to take anyone seriously that disagrees with your viewpoint. Such has been the trend recently in politics, religion and just about anything where people have differing views.

There is no perceived unfairness in the guild system. There is actual unfairness with respect to decay. The developers have even acknowledged this point as another poster pointed out.

I am commenting because I think small guilds should have less decay. I think having an environment that encourages and supports small guilds is a good thing and good for the game.

[Chaos000]

And he is conveniently IGNORING that this change is a direct result of the whole revamp of the Augment system as a whole and NOT due any perceived incongruity of the Guild system.

More reason not to take the poster seriously.

Sorry I have to jump in on this. While it is impossible to reason with a person who refuses to acknowledge any countering arguments against his position on an issue, any good points he has made thus far is not instantly invalidated.

I'm pretty intractable when it comes to saying that equitable decay/account to measure fairness is unrealistic in a decay/guild-rank system. The main flaw with old decay/account system is while mathematically sound, the assumption of no decline in activity with a higher number of players is hard to accept even in theory. (even in tiny guilds it's preferable to have one player multibox over having two individual players)

I do see merit in all guilds progressing no matter how small, so long as more progression is better achieved through recruitment and not through eliminating any players no matter how low their activity.

[Chaos000]

I am commenting because I think small guilds should have less decay. I think having an environment that encourages and supports small guilds is a good thing and good for the game.

I am ok with less decay for smaller guilds as well. Reduction can be as high as turbine is willing to go. However, removing any player no matter how low their activity should continue to not be a manner in which a guild could achieve a reduction in decay.

Sheesh, now I'm going to sound like a broken record.