Guild Renown Changes

[Silverleafeon]

Handing out +1s, see alot of good posts...

[Gleep_Wurp]

getting rid of decay altogether.i wont buy a guild pot only to have the reward dimish over time.we have 4 in our guild, so now how hard is it going to be to hit 55 now?

[Zenako]

Unless your guild gained a level in the past day, renown drops are completely unchanged.

The 3-level-per-day limit is just a change from a 7-levels-per-day limit that was already live in the game before yesterday. It's likely most players weren't aware that existed, since it generally only mattered for new guilds that were gaining many levels in a single day. It probably still doesn't affect most guilds.

You betcha, never even knew that the old system had a limit. It was just not an issue since all the guilds I am/was in were medium sized or smaller so limits that that were irrelevant.

[djl]

The simplest change to placate small guilds would be to increase the bonus they get to bring it more in-line with the kind of renown "manpower" large guilds will have. The current bonus means each person in a six-person guild accomplishes the work of 4 people, so with these changes a six-person guild is functionally equivalent to a 24-person guild. Quintuple the renown bonuses, so that you get 1500% bonus instead of 300%, and then you'll have the equivalent of a 96-person guild which is in line with about how many "active accounts" many large guilds have (15x the renown + the base renown = 16x the renown, times 6 people = 96).

[theslimshady]

this post has turned to the same tired ole **** it always does tring to say because under 24 people get the small guild percent bonus which is equal or fair in any way or shows any data based on activity is a total shame you can have 12 peeps on in a hour pulling 50 renowns which equals 600 then add the bonus lets use 100 percent modifier thats 1200 in a hour where you can have 20 peeps on with no bonus means they pull 50s same hour equals 1000 it is a shame and has nothing to do with activity and this whole aurgument should be stoped cause its insulting and a form of bullying no matter how many words or graphs you use to spell it out .

[chrisdinus7]

<excellent post>

This. I agree completely. Everyone focuses on the tiny minority of small guilds that have leveled to high levels, while ignoring the vast majority that have not. Props on using actual data as well.

For a while, I have been thinking that removing the levels altogether might be best. Though someone's post about how it was going to stay due to it being an additional grind mechanism is probably true.

I have pondered other systems, but I am not sure what would make people happy. A scale-free normalization of guild renown based on # of players would put us back to where it is advantageous to kick casuals. Maybe using the old system but letting guildies opt-in / opt-out (or perhaps at the leader's discretion). At least casuals could be put in a spot where they were not hurting large guilds. Still doesn't do much for the small struggling guilds.

Maybe a choose n system (select 6 or 10 players or whatever) that are the only ones who can earn renown, and then re-balance the needed renown around that. It is scale free at least (you could give a bonus to guilds that don't have enough members). Problem with that is that you have a lot of players who can't contribute, and you might have people applying social pressure to the "renown team".

[chrisdinus7]

The simplest change to placate small guilds would be to increase the bonus they get to bring it more in-line with the kind of renown "manpower" large guilds will have. The current bonus means each person in a six-person guild accomplishes the work of 4 people, so with these changes a six-person guild is functionally equivalent to a 24-person guild. Quintuple the renown bonuses, so that you get 1500% bonus instead of 300%, and then you'll have the equivalent of a 96-person guild which is in line with about how many "active accounts" many large guilds have (15x the renown + the base renown = 16x the renown, times 6 people = 96).

But why even keep guild levels / decay then? It'll just create a bunch of level 100 guilds, which going by my experience in other MMOs tells me that it'll discourage the creation of new guilds. After all, why would most people bother when they can just join the standard max-level horde guild? Those players would probably be better off in the long run to create more supportive guilds, but from what I have seen, the initial cost will be too high, and they'll just drift from horde guild to horde guild, getting kicked if they are off for a week or so and then joining another guild where they are just a name on a list that no one cares about when they get a level 100 spam invite.

[Silverleafeon]

What effect does gaining a single level in a day have on guild renown?

Cause when a guild hits a stalemate, its losing a level then gaining it back every day?

[djl]

But why even keep guild levels / decay then? It'll just create a bunch of level 100 guilds, which going by my experience in other MMOs tells me that it'll discourage the creation of new guilds. After all, why would most people bother when they can just join the standard max-level horde guild? Those players would probably be better off in the long run to create more supportive guilds, but from what I have seen, the initial cost will be too high, and they'll just drift from horde guild to horde guild, getting kicked if they are off for a week or so and then joining another guild where they are just a name on a list that no one cares about when they get a level 100 spam invite.

This change is going to create a bunch of level 100 guilds regardless, it's just they'll all be Korthos Army guilds and small guilds will be hung out to dry. If they're going to devalue the accomplishment of getting a high-level guild, at least it should be fair to both sides. All this change really did was shift the imbalance from one side of the spectrum to the other. Now, instead of the system favoring small guilds and screwing over large guilds it is the opposite.

They say nothing changed for small guilds, but that's the problem. It is now VASTLY more efficient to have a large guild because past the work of 24 people (a six-man guild does the work of 24 people, as I showed in my last post), every bit of renown earned by additional people is simply bonus. Huge guilds will advance SIGNIFICANTLY faster than small guilds, so it's just as unbalanced as before-- it simply caters to a different group.

[Tshober]

I have pondered other systems, but I am not sure what would make people happy. A scale-free normalization of guild renown based on # of players would put us back to where it is advantageous to kick casuals. Maybe using the old system but letting guildies opt-in / opt-out (or perhaps at the leader's discretion). At least casuals could be put in a spot where they were not hurting large guilds. Still doesn't do much for the small struggling guilds.

This opt-in/opt-out plan gets proposed very often. The main problems I see with it are:

1) It places a ton of administrative effort on large guilds. Imagine trying to keep track of the current status versus the optimal status of 1000 members, as players and alts continaully come and go, with the present guild admin. tools. It would be an administrative nightmare. It would, in fact, be far easier for guilds to simply continue to filter out casual/social players and not invite new players and not have to worry about the opt-in or opt-out status.

2) It does nothing to help out with social players, such as role-players.

3) You can accomplish the same end-effect far more easiliy and accurately by ensuring (mathematically) that no player ever causes more decay than they earn in renown. Essentially this means you can never earn less renown than zero, after taking decay into account. Prior to this very recent change, many players earned far less than zero renown. This can be accomplished in a completely automated way by adjusting the math that calculates daily decay.

[Gremmlynn]

This is the exact same thing people were saying to members of large, struggling guilds a week ago. Telling them to change their playstyle to suit the guild system, which rewarded smaller guilds. Lots of people hated that idea, so the system got changed to this. Now I am getting told the exact same thing and I am just about as happy about it as those people were last week. I hate it, and if you don't see the inequality of this system then it is because you don't want to.

My guild will NEVER be significantly larger that it is now, no matter the the guild system, because we are a group of friends that know each other well and that is something you just can't get with a larger guild. I don't think we should be punished for that any more that people last week thought they should be punished for having many casual members.

If your guild has more than 10 accounts, you just got a reduction in your decay. If your guild has 10 or fewer accounts, you are exactly in the same situation as you were before. I don't see where the inequities are here.

I do see where there were inequities in a system that made playing a certain amount of time/week a defacto requirement for membership in a functional guild.

[Gremmlynn]

This change is going to create a bunch of level 100 guilds regardless, it's just they'll all be Korthos Army guilds and small guilds will be hung out to dry. If they're going to devalue the accomplishment of getting a high-level guild, at least it should be fair to both sides. All this change really did was shift the imbalance from one side of the spectrum to the other. Now, instead of the system favoring small guilds and screwing over large guilds it is the opposite.

They say nothing changed for small guilds, but that's the problem. It is now VASTLY more efficient to have a large guild because past the work of 24 people (a six-man guild does the work of 24 people, as I showed in my last post), every bit of renown earned by additional people is simply bonus. Huge guilds will advance SIGNIFICANTLY faster than small guilds, so it's just as unbalanced as before-- it simply caters to a different group.

In other words, the old system encouraged people to not play together as much as the new system. Seems like an improvement to me. But then, I never considered guild levels (or anything else in a video game) to an accomplishment. More of a bribe to keep playing the game. This system just lets more players take advantage of that bribe and thus more people will, hopefully, keep playing the game.

Those who simply don't want to play with others can keep doing so the same as before, others just wont be given an incentive to do likewise now is all.

[Wook]

I'll take a reduction means we might be able to actually hit that next level.
Though no decay would be more preferred.

[Jastron]

I know not everyone will approve, but for our situation, we no longer have to be concerned if a player's real life home and work situations will allow them to play regularly or not when inducting them into our guild. If they get along with us well, we can take them in even if they rarely play. We do not yet have such scrutiny in our rules, but I certainly have not been making an effort to recruit anyone who can rarely ever play to avoid feeling like I am adding a burden to the guild's efforts to hit level 70. Now, if the person is fun and a good fit, I'll take them right in. All due to this change by Turbine which our members appreciate.

In response to Vanshilar who I respect for all of his excellent renown research over the years, although you may be correct that a few players would play more if given more incentive (perhaps more guild events or more attention paid to their characters) in my experience, folks who don't logon much have real-life issues such as work, school, and family and no matter the incentive they would not be playing more often. Therefore, the reduction in decay is perfect to help those folks get into and remain in a caring, supportive guild.

[djl]

If your guild has more than 10 accounts, you just got a reduction in your decay. If your guild has 10 or fewer accounts, you are exactly in the same situation as you were before. I don't see where the inequities are here.

I do see where there were inequities in a system that made playing a certain amount of time/week a defacto requirement for membership in a functional guild.

The inequities are that the system is far more rewarding to larger guilds. A six-person guild receives 4x renown, so each person accomplishes what 4 people can do. That means that they are functionally equivalent to a 24 person guild. A guild with more than 24 active people in it will gain renown at a faster rate than a six-person guild, and it will increase significantly when you get up to 100 or 200 people in your guild.

That's the problem-- with flat-rate renown decay, the bonus small guilds receive can't begin to keep up with the amount large guilds earn. The bonus small guilds receive needs to be increased for the system to be fair to them.

[djl]

In other words, the old system encouraged people to not play together as much as the new system. Seems like an improvement to me. But then, I never considered guild levels (or anything else in a video game) to an accomplishment. More of a bribe to keep playing the game. This system just lets more players take advantage of that bribe and thus more people will, hopefully, keep playing the game.

Those who simply don't want to play with others can keep doing so the same as before, others just wont be given an incentive to do likewise now is all.

So, you're just using the old "don't like it then play a different way" argument towards the other side. Large guilds are impersonal-- you never really get to know more than a handful of people nearly as well as you would in a smaller guild. For that reason, I much prefer being in a smaller guild. Just like it was BS for Turbine to punish large guilds then, it's equally unfair for them to punish small guilds now. Can we never have balance?

[LadyAerys]

So a guild with lets say 3 people who play off and on a little every day, has no chance of reaching level 100 unless they specifically set out with pots, to gain as much renown as possible? Average in a day of playing i might get 6000 renown, maybe, that was with small guild bonus. Taking that away is like saying small guilds have to recruit, what if we dont want too? I like the other change, but give us back our small guild bonus, as it stands without it i may get 2000 renown in a day of playing. Combine that with the maybe 2000 the other two ppl get, 6000 renown is going to be canceled out by decay pretty fast.

But I agree with the general thinking no decay is preferred.

[karpedieme]

Unless your guild gained a level in the past day, renown drops are completely unchanged.

The 3-level-per-day limit is just a change from a 7-levels-per-day limit that was already live in the game before yesterday. It's likely most players weren't aware that existed, since it generally only mattered for new guilds that were gaining many levels in a single day. It probably still doesn't affect most guilds.

We have been fluttering between 94 and 95 for 1 month Plus. So yes prior to the Flip Switch we were 94 and hit 95 during the day.

We hit 95 again yesterday and we have 7 guildies + running tr's. Looting a lot of chests and running a lot of content.

They all noted renown to be very scarce if any at all. Chests having some not always and End rewards too.

All running Elite BB and 2 levels over quest or below on repeats FYI.

Guildies farming EE demonweb chests did not get a single legendary a few scarce impressives in mutliple hour farms too.

Could be coincidental but so far the numbers seem off.

Running above quest level also should not affect renown drop but how did this translate with the cap lifting from 20 to 25? any view you could clarify here if possible.

Running lowbies 3 levels above quest level strips renown from End rewards.... So in parralel renown would not drop in chests in raids run 2 levels above like VOD HOX Reaver Shroud TOD etc....

Just very curious as to how Cap raise might of affected renown gathering in aspects of Character level Vs Quest level.

Cheers Vargouille and thanks in advance

[CaptainSpacePony]

This ... snip... community.

(post 201)

Best Post this year... but you'll never make it as a politician. You keep clouding the issue with FACTS!

Sorry, I'm out of +1s atm.

[patang01]

But why even keep guild levels / decay then? It'll just create a bunch of level 100 guilds, which going by my experience in other MMOs tells me that it'll discourage the creation of new guilds. After all, why would most people bother when they can just join the standard max-level horde guild? Those players would probably be better off in the long run to create more supportive guilds, but from what I have seen, the initial cost will be too high, and they'll just drift from horde guild to horde guild, getting kicked if they are off for a week or so and then joining another guild where they are just a name on a list that no one cares about when they get a level 100 spam invite.

People leave and create guilds for all kind of reasons. I doubt that a bunch of high level guilds is going to change that. I wouldn't leave mine.

More importantly like someone else wrote - why would I bother buying a guild pot when you have this decay? It's like throwing away money.