Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

What will general access to statistics help? The people who actually have the ability to change things already have access to those statistics. For the rest of us, exact numbers really aren't necessary for anything but winning peeing contests on these forums.

What you say is true, at least I hope it is. But it seems to me that some very simple automated cleanup could potentially get rid of the overhead of keeping hundreds of dead guilds around. They all have to have decay calculated on them very day. They all have to be sorted and ranked in the lists on myddo.com. with every query. Etc., etc. And the stats would be better too. Seems well worth it to me. But I am a big fan of code that cleans up after itself well, which is another way of saying I am a dinosaur.

[Arnez]

You know- something I've wondered- Just why do people think that 1-man guilds are such a bad thing?
It seems like all this stuff started when that ONE guy "figured out the math" and made it to 100 during the Build Your Guild Event.
Was that so bad? I mean the Build Your Guild Event was flawed anyways, we "figured out the math" and created 4 Free accounts (because Free accounts brought in more renown bonuses during that time) and was not beneficial to returning players at ALL.

[Gremmlynn]

What you say is true, at least I hope it is. But it seems to me that some very simple automated cleanup could potentially get rid of the overhead of keeping hundreds of dead guilds around. They all have to have decay calculated on them very day. They all have to be sorted and ranked in the lists on myddo.com. with every query. Etc., etc. And the stats would be better too. Seems well worth it to me. But I am a big fan of code that cleans up after itself well, which is another way of saying I am a dinosaur.

It just seems more effort would likely be spent writing this automated clean up tool than would be saved by having it. It also avoids the odd I came back to DDO and my guild was deleted" gripe that Turbine seems to like to avoid at all costs judging by their keeping inactive accounts intact perpetually.

[Gremmlynn]

You know- something I've wondered- Just why do people think that 1-man guilds are such a bad thing?
It seems like all this stuff started when that ONE guy "figured out the math" and made it to 100 during the Build Your Guild Event.
Was that so bad? I mean the Build Your Guild Event was flawed anyways, we "figured out the math" and created 4 Free accounts (because Free accounts brought in more renown bonuses during that time) and was not beneficial to returning players at ALL.

Because, at their core, guilds are social networks and one man social networks are generally called "kooks who talk to themselves".

[Charononus]

Because, at their core, guilds are social networks and one man social networks are generally called "kooks who talk to themselves".

Which is also where most the tension comes from between large and tiny guilds. Members of large guilds look at tiny guilds and go, "that's not a guild it can't even fill a raid party". I'll be honest I don't understand the tinies what so ever but, I don't mind that they exist. Wouldn't join one if you paid me but don't mind that they exist.

[Nestroy]

Why? Seems like a waste of time to even bother.

1.) As Tshober already said, it would give a better overlook over which guilds are really active. Statistis for the first time would be meaningful.
2.) For a guild marked disbanded (if not completely deleted from the database) there would be no need to run the scripts repopulating ships or deducting decay, or anything. This might help the servers run faster, get up faster after down and might help with the ship buffs repopulating after server downs on high frequency servers. Short, it would ease the server / database load for some things.
3.) If played right by Turbine / the devs, this could be turned in an guild-purge event and they could even make money out of the process (like auctioning used guild charters, used guild ships, used guild buffs and guild chest inventories or the like). Of course this would be a good time to introduce any new guild renown and renwon decay system they want to implement.

[Nestroy]

I would imagine if they were running a guild raid neither one of us would even know it was going on, much less how many are in the group. My experience with raids on our server generally begin with a tell asking if I'm interested.

Not much work putting up LFMs, no. It's just a very inefficient system on a low pop server. One /g hey anyone interested in XXX lets me know who wants in. LFMs count on players actually having the grouping menu open to see they are up, fewer people means fewer likely to even be doing that by the time the quests ends, much less starts. I'm not waiting 20+ mins for a group to form to run a 10 min quest, hell I am unlikely to spend 20 continuous minutes in public instances at anytime.

Well, I use the "who´s on" fairly often on our server and meanwhile I have quite a good grip on who is running where with whom.

While for high levels you are perfectly right - most groups form around /tell. Wayfinder is too small, everybody high level knows anybody there. For low levels (well, before lv. 15 or 16, that is), oersonally I prefer LFMs - because of newbie and less known players and to get to know them. That does not mean that I am against forming groups on lower levels by /tell, but it simply is not my style. But any ask by /tell for joining a group usually gets consideration and more often than not a positive response. I like grouping.

[Nestroy]

You know- something I've wondered- Just why do people think that 1-man guilds are such a bad thing?
It seems like all this stuff started when that ONE guy "figured out the math" and made it to 100 during the Build Your Guild Event.
Was that so bad? I mean the Build Your Guild Event was flawed anyways, we "figured out the math" and created 4 Free accounts (because Free accounts brought in more renown bonuses during that time) and was not beneficial to returning players at ALL.

On the Turbine perspective, as long as the one-man guild guy multiboxes 6 VIP accounts and pays the pots, they do not have anything against it. Zonixx (the one guy we know about) even had the official consent from Turbine to test the system into the extreme. He did it to lv. 100 in about 40 days. Well, he did it before the level ransack and during the build-your-guild event. Nonetheless a feat in it self.

I already adopted some of his methotds to advance my guild. I personally refrain from multiboxing. For one thing I do not have the equippement necessary and for second I do not want to have the hassle with more than one account - I am in for the fun, not for the grind.

But I have my Farmtoons running, kill them upon reaching 3 hours of play (one pot length) and can net about 60k renown easily with one of them... If I had more online exposure, I could even run one of these toons into the grounds daily, but I do not have the time necessary and I love the game for the fun of it, so that´s usually the ammount I farm in about 5 days. This of course helps combatting the decay a lot.

[Gremmlynn]

Well, I use the "who´s on" fairly often on our server and meanwhile I have quite a good grip on who is running where with whom.

While for high levels you are perfectly right - most groups form around /tell. Wayfinder is too small, everybody high level knows anybody there. For low levels (well, before lv. 15 or 16, that is), oersonally I prefer LFMs - because of newbie and less known players and to get to know them. That does not mean that I am against forming groups on lower levels by /tell, but it simply is not my style. But any ask by /tell for joining a group usually gets consideration and more often than not a positive response. I like grouping.

I wouldn't bother with /tell for anything other than a raid, as I said /g "who's interested" form up and go if any are. The server pop is to low to expect enough people to hit a LFM in the time I'm willing to wait for a group. It's why I like large guilds.

[slarden]

On the Turbine perspective, as long as the one-man guild guy multiboxes 6 VIP accounts and pays the pots, they do not have anything against it. Zonixx (the one guy we know about) even had the official consent from Turbine to test the system into the extreme. He did it to lv. 100 in about 40 days. Well, he did it before the level ransack and during the build-your-guild event. Nonetheless a feat in it self.

I already adopted some of his methotds to advance my guild. I personally refrain from multiboxing. For one thing I do not have the equippement necessary and for second I do not want to have the hassle with more than one account - I am in for the fun, not for the grind.

But I have my Farmtoons running, kill them upon reaching 3 hours of play (one pot length) and can net about 60k renown easily with one of them... If I had more online exposure, I could even run one of these toons into the grounds daily, but I do not have the time necessary and I love the game for the fun of it, so that´s usually the ammount I farm in about 5 days. This of course helps combatting the decay a lot.

Well I am on Sarlona and I don't really know Zonixx. I've quested with few toons form this guild, presumably alts, but that's about it. While I am very happy and impressed with his success, unfortunately I am sure that played into many of the feelings people have towards tiny guilds, especially 6-person guilds. It may have even been a factor in this guild system change, but that is complete speculation.

I would think they would realize that for every 1 zonixx there are several hundred folks like these (from general discussion forum)

I am a casual player. I play maybe 12 hours a week. I have several alts. After around two years of playing, my main character is now 23rd level.

My guild is tiny, it's the characters of my family and real-life friends who play DDO. It's a small low level guild, but we're happy.

... a bunch of stuff removed here...

I guess most 23rd level characters are flagged for every raid and know them all well, and are from big guilds with well equipped airships. I spent most of this morning trying to figure out how to flag for Against the Demon Queen, thinking maybe I should just go and get flagged for all these raids so I can go do things. Still can't figure it all out. Done all the quests in the desert, but the genie won't give me the quest, so I probably did something wrong.

. . .and that's the casual player's lament.

What changes would YOU make to improve / update guild airship amenities?


PREAMBLE
My very small (6 person) guild just recently hit level 55 and we upgraded to the Stormglory Tempest airship. Very nice ship, and I'm loving the additional hookpoints. But as I was filling up the ship, I started to realize that for the most part, the available amenities are rather limited. I don't expect my guild will ever get to the level 80 or 85 ship (the renown requirements and decay are way too high for a 6 person guild to get there)

... a bunch of stuff removed....

I think these are much more typical of a tiny guild than Zonixx's guild. Again, all I can say is that he is very impressive - not a criticism at all. I just don't think what he did is typical.

So Turbine must realize decay is an issue for tiny guilds by now. I have to go back to Doc's point that the only reason Turbine would want to keep decay high is for financial reasons - so that these guilds must by elixirs and rent gold seal amenities to get the better buffs.

I would hope not, but it certainly makes sense.

If that is the case it's unlikely they will do anything for us unless they can come up with a better way to monetize the guild system.

[Chaos000]

Well this is what should have been done from the beginning. If the level you were on at day start (when decay is paid) has 350k renown, the ransack timer starts on getting 350k renown, not the 200 renown that puts you at the next level.

I am all for this idea. Renown ransack is based not on whether or not a guild gained a level but on whether or not a certain amount of renown gain exceeded the expected threshold.

Therefore (smaller) guilds that does not gain as much renown will not likely ever have to deal with renown ransack as opposed to faster renown generating (larger) guilds that must deal with renown ransack on a daily basis.

To help monetize the guild system...

Eliminate the minimum (20) decay formula. Guild of 6 has the decay of 6 instead of 20. If there are guilds easily gaining 3 levels per day at the upper tiers... set a higher cap, 30 sounds reasonable.

And let's make renown pots worth it by increasing it's value enough that any player using renown potions can see marked progress regardless of level.

Renown ransack bypass item? Decay/day suspension item? +10% (stacking) Guild renown bonus item?

[Gremmlynn]

I am all for this idea. Renown ransack is based not on whether or not a guild gained a level but on whether or not a certain amount of renown gain exceeded the expected threshold.

Just set that threshold at the total renown needed for whatever level you were at at the start on the decay period and it has the effect of kicking in after gaining one full level worth of renown, rather than however much was necessary to gain the next level and it would seem to fulfill the devs stated intent. Now if the devs actual intent was to make getting over the hump of the next level difficult, the current system would be a better tool.

[Nestroy]

I am all for this idea. Renown ransack is based not on whether or not a guild gained a level but on whether or not a certain amount of renown gain exceeded the expected threshold.

Therefore (smaller) guilds that does not gain as much renown will not likely ever have to deal with renown ransack as opposed to faster renown generating (larger) guilds that must deal with renown ransack on a daily basis.

To help monetize the guild system...

Eliminate the minimum (20) decay formula. Guild of 6 has the decay of 6 instead of 20. If there are guilds easily gaining 3 levels per day at the upper tiers... set a higher cap, 30 sounds reasonable.

And let's make renown pots worth it by increasing it's value enough that any player using renown potions can see marked progress regardless of level.

Renown ransack bypass item? Decay/day suspension item? +10% (stacking) Guild renown bonus item?

The threshold idea is generally speaking a +1. Just my 25 ct.:

+ Currently the system kicks in after a guild earned a level. So the formula is bound to level and there is a mechanics going on that can find out if the guild gaines one, two or even 3 levels and does set the ransack penalty accordingly. This already exists. A threshold mechanics would have to be newly generated. And in sight of the long history of breaking something while implementing something new, I do not know if that is a good idea.

+ Thresholds would need to be bound on something. While this could easily be the difference between what was necessary to reach the next guild level minus what was necessary to reach the last guild level, gone into the extremes a lv. 1 guild wanting to get to lv. 2 would need 800 renown and afterwards gets kicked bad by ransack, while a lv. 98 guild can acquire nearly 1.5m renown and only then gets the 1st ransack? So building in certain step thresholds, or ransack kicking in not before lv. 20 or anything? And anything complex as we all know doesn´t get too much of a devs time...

While I like the threshold idea, I would suggest something building up on what we already have. And there the easy button would be to set the ransack on gaining 2 levels in one day, and with the second level kick in hard and with the 3rd cap it at no further renown gained.

So the max a guild can earn is 3 levels (as now) - not worse for large guilds, which is important. But since ransack kicks in after 2nd level, most small guilds would not have any problem with the new system at all, because they will never ever gain 2 levles / day, except when very low level .

[slarden]

The ransack penalty is completely unnecessary as it really serves no purpose now except to slow down start-up guilds and stall small guilds that are already the most disadvantaged guilds under the new system.

Since we started tracking my guild, Hendrick's guild and Bathory Hordes guild 17 days ago I already demonstrated my guild is very active and that activity level is not an issue.

As for level gains during the past 17 days:

Guardians of House Cannith level 76 9 person guild: 0 levels
Eternal Wrath level 86 78 person guild: 2 levels
Bathory Hordes Level 76 385 person guild: 4 levels (16 levels gained since the guild change was introduced)

Bathory Hordes lost less than 12% renown during the 17 day period due to the ransack penalty as they gained 4 levels. Eternal Wrath lost less than 6% renown during the 17 day period due to the ransack penalty as they gained 2 levels. It's not really slowing any guilds down that are now advancing rapidly due the massive decay reduction they received.

These guilds have the critical mass to easily overcome the ransack penalty and hold their level. The gain a level lose a level cycle will only happen if they gain a level shortly before decay.

For tiny guilds with fewer members where decay is still a significant factor, the guild needs to effectively earn double their daily decay rate before decay sets in since the ransack takes away about half of what they earn. It's a very big deal. It's very ironic that the decay mechanism was increased to slow down the large guilds that receieved a massive decay reduction, however, it has the largest negative impact on tiny guilds that received no decay reduction.

[Chaos000]

While I like the threshold idea, I would suggest something building up on what we already have. And there the easy button would be to set the ransack on gaining 2 levels in one day, and with the second level kick in hard and with the 3rd cap it at no further renown gained.

So the max a guild can earn is 3 levels (as now) - not worse for large guilds, which is important. But since ransack kicks in after 2nd level, most small guilds would not have any problem with the new system at all, because they will never ever gain 2 levels / day, except when very low level.

Honestly, I am even ok with removing ransack for smaller guilds. If it's across the board, the simple fix would be not having ransack kick in after 2nd level with max a guild can earn being 3 (as now)

If renown potions had a multiplier applied based on guild size. It should offset the advantage that larger guilds have. large (x2 current), medium (x3), small (x4), very small (x5).

[Hendrik]

The ransack penalty is completely unnecessary as it really serves no purpose now except to slow down start-up guilds and stall small guilds that are already the most disadvantaged guilds under the new system.

Since we started tracking my guild, Hendrick's guild and Bathory Hordes guild 17 days ago I already demonstrated my guild is very active and that activity level is not an issue.

As for level gains during the past 17 days:

Guardians of House Cannith level 76 9 person guild: 0 levels
Eternal Wrath level 86 78 person guild: 2 levels
Bathory Hordes Level 76 385 person guild: 4 levels (16 levels gained since the guild change was introduced)

Bathory Hordes lost less than 12% renown during the 17 day period due to the ransack penalty as they gained 4 levels. Eternal Wrath lost less than 6% renown during the 17 day period due to the ransack penalty as they gained 2 levels. It's not really slowing any guilds down that are now advancing rapidly due the massive decay reduction they received.

These guilds have the critical mass to easily overcome the ransack penalty and hold their level. The gain a level lose a level cycle will only happen if they gain a level shortly before decay.

For tiny guilds with fewer members where decay is still a significant factor, the guild needs to effectively earn double their daily decay rate before decay sets in since the ransack takes away about half of what they earn. It's a very big deal. It's very ironic that the decay mechanism was increased to slow down the large guilds that receieved a massive decay reduction, however, it has the largest negative impact on tiny guilds that received no decay reduction.

So, the more members you have and the more active they are, the more renown you get.

So, what you have not gained levels, big deal. You have been gaining and that is the whole point. You are fine with advancing slowly and you are doing just that. Your fine with large guilds advancing more quickly. They are doing just that.

You have the activity level of a guild that is 8-9 times the size of your in members. With that activity level you have claimed to have, the +255% very small bonus, and still cannot get over daily decay? The math does not add up when other guilds of your size or smaller can do it.

Stop comparing a very small guild to a large, it is not fair, and you want fair. Compare to other very small guilds.

Wanna know how we gained so much? Organized events. Multiple a week. Four or more. That thing you won't do. We also added a member - the other thing you won't do.

[smatt]

So, the more members you have and the more active they are, the more renown you get.

So, what you have not gained levels, big deal. You have been gaining and that is the whole point. You are fine with advancing slowly and you are doing just that. Your fine with large guilds advancing more quickly. They are doing just that.

You have the activity level of a guild that is 8-9 times the size of your in members. With that activity level you have claimed to have, the +255% very small bonus, and still cannot get over daily decay? The math does not add up when other guilds of your size or smaller can do it.

Stop comparing a very small guild to a large, it is not fair, and you want fair. Compare to other very small guilds.

Wanna know how we gained so much? Organized events. Multiple a week. Four or more. That thing you won't do. We also added a member - the other thing you won't do.

Hopeless case.... Some people won't be happy until they're handed everything on a gold platter.

[slarden]

Smatt and Henderick.

What we know is that both your guilds were stalled when you were getting roughly the same decay/player that my guild and other tiny guilds have.

We also know that this stalling situation persisted for quite some time and was only resolved when decay was reduced for your guilds. I am happy decay was reduced for your guilds and would like to see this benefit expanded to the entire DDO community of guilds.

The problem has nothing to do with tiny guilds doing anything wrong. The problem is decay is just too high as it used to be for your guilds.

Here are some quotes that were made prior to this guild change. I agree with these earlier comments:

I do not think that every Guild should be 100. But I do not think a Guild should stagnate in advancement, even if that advancement is small. 100 should be an achievable goal. It may take some longer then others, but so long as everyone is making progress I think we all would be happy.

Gamers like to make progress, it is in our nature. If we are not making progress in what we are doing, even if that progress is small, we find something else.

We = generic we.

Once your Guild hits that plateau, no matter what type of players you have, it is advancing beyond that point is not really all that possible without some change in gameplay.

We have plateaued at 80.

[Chaos000]

So, the more members you have and the more active they are, the more renown you get.

Also, since inactive or active players no longer add or detract to guild decay, inactive players can be now factored by comparing guilds of same level of differing size to show diminishing value (in terms of renown/player) as a guild grows in size.

You can then apply this model to current active players as a rough estimate of how much less activity you can reasonably expect from larger guilds to determine how much of a reduction in decay is resonable to assign to smaller guilds. I'm willing to admit that there IS a disparity that favors larger guilds, not quite as high as some people are making it out to be. Even the person, that worked out the math showing how larger guilds are favored, admitted there appears to be a drop off at higher numbers.

What would you guys think about percentage of total guild participation adding an extra renown boost? obviously smaller guilds would be easier to organize so would benefit most. 50% of members logged in a day = x bonus, 75% of members logged in a day = y bonus, 100% of members logged in a day = z bonus. Even a weekend player would find themselves logging in more frequently to say hi.

[slarden]

I am all for this idea. Renown ransack is based not on whether or not a guild gained a level but on whether or not a certain amount of renown gain exceeded the expected threshold.

Therefore (smaller) guilds that does not gain as much renown will not likely ever have to deal with renown ransack as opposed to faster renown generating (larger) guilds that must deal with renown ransack on a daily basis.

To help monetize the guild system...

Eliminate the minimum (20) decay formula. Guild of 6 has the decay of 6 instead of 20. If there are guilds easily gaining 3 levels per day at the upper tiers... set a higher cap, 30 sounds reasonable.

And let's make renown pots worth it by increasing it's value enough that any player using renown potions can see marked progress regardless of level.

Renown ransack bypass item? Decay/day suspension item? +10% (stacking) Guild renown bonus item?

Good ideas.

I really believe trying to earn revenue through a penalty mechanism is a bad idea for any company. Even if they can earn money this way, there will always be some frustration over having to purchase a product to combat decay.

A real simple way to monetize the guild system is to allow guilds to buy whatever ship they want without a restriction based on level.

Next, let people buy whatever buffs they want with plat without a level restriction.

Change gold seal amenities so they are permanent (bought instead of rented so they never expire) and the effect lasts 4 hours instead of 1 hour. They would also have no level requirement. Price would obviously go up alot.

I don't really like paying to combat a decay mechanic, but I will gladly pay for the convenience of not having to update my ship buffs and not having to buff as much. They would even get money from large guilds this way.

There would be a huge influx of purchases this year, but what about recurring revenues? Well guilds are always forming and some will want to buy these items. So there will continue to be recurring revenues. Some guilds will build up permanent buffs slowly so the revenue stream would continue. I believe it would be much higher than the current renown pot/rental money they are earning. It wouldn't take long for a finance person at Turbine to project the revenue change.

It's much like tomes, if the store rented tomes on a weekly basis they would sell some, but most people prefer to buy vs. rent so they would realize much less revenue renting them vs. selling them outright.

It's so easy to turn this system into a positive for everyone and increase Turbine $.