Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

Im surprised that you all have yet to give up. Nothing of value has come in 144 pages. And people are still egocentric and not listening.

Quite the contrary. The change has done a great deal of good. There is more that should be done to give some decay relief to the tiny guilds that have not received any yet, but overall the game now rewards inclusiveness and no longer rewards the shunning of players who earn less renown than average. Those are very positive changes and should help make for a much improved social environment.

I am keeping up with this thread to do my part to advocate that we not go back to the way it was before and to advocate for extending the decay relief to tiny guilds. There is a great deal of agreement here. Only a very few have argued for going back to the old decay system. And most posters agree that tiny guilds should also get some decay relief. Whether the devs will eventually come to the same conclusion is yet to be seen, but most posters agree on the direction.

[Chaos000]

There is a great deal of agreement here. Only a very few have argued for going back to the old decay system. And most posters agree that tiny guilds should also get some decay relief. Whether the devs will eventually come to the same conclusion is yet to be seen, but most posters agree on the direction.

Having renown ransack not hit till second level earned and perhaps hard capping renown gain per week would go a long way to help.

Reasoning: Guilds (of all sizes) with low rate of renown gain are unlikely to ever gain more than one level in a day however, it WILL break the cycle of gaining a level and being unable to hold the gained level due to ransack. (larger) Guilds with an aggressively high rate of renown gain only benefit from hitting renown cap faster. Therefore there is a measure that balances out size+activity without factoring just size.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Im surprised that you all have yet to give up. Nothing of value has come in 144 pages. And people are still egocentric and not listening.

the Dev's asked for our input. We are still inputting.....

And this thread (all 145+ pages of it) is a well behaved thread. Generally the comments have been well thought out and supported - the commenters have been mature and again, well behaved.

Didn't you know? we like to get the last word in.

That and repeating speaking points over and over because the other person "obviously didn't get it" the first time.
...
Speaker A: you're stupid, they should eliminate decay
Speaker B: you're stupid, decay is highly unlikely to go away.

lmfao this is so true. I know I have repeated myself a couple of times - but mostly to add colour and to further explain. Don't worry - I'll repost (in this post) my idea(with a couple stolen egregiously from others :P )

Quite the contrary. The change has done a great deal of good. There is more that should be done to give some decay relief to the tiny guilds that have not received any yet, but overall the game now rewards inclusiveness and no longer rewards the shunning of players who earn less renown than average. Those are very positive changes and should help make for a much improved social environment.

I am keeping up with this thread to do my part to advocate that we not go back to the way it was before and to advocate for extending the decay relief to tiny guilds. There is a great deal of agreement here. Only a very few have argued for going back to the old decay system. And most posters agree that tiny guilds should also get some decay relief. Whether the devs will eventually come to the same conclusion is yet to be seen, but most posters agree on the direction.

While Tsober and I don't always see eye-to-eye - our discourse (and the discourse of many others) have brought us closer to a solid reply to the dev's request. They will be somewhat slow to change further the decay system in fear of any further changes being too knee-jerk; need to give changes a chance to show how they affect the game.

Having renown ransack not hit till second level earned and perhaps hard capping renown gain per week would go a long way to help.

Reasoning: Guilds (of all sizes) with low rate of renown gain are unlikely to ever gain more than one level in a day however, it WILL break the cycle of gaining a level and being unable to hold the gained level due to ransack. (larger) Guilds with an aggressively high rate of renown gain only benefit from hitting renown cap faster. Therefore there is a measure that balances out size+activity without factoring just size.

Choas000 - agree.

So!

1. Add a probationary invite to the guild system - whereby guilds can invite new members on a two-week probationary basis so the recruit and the guild can see if the fit is right. Probationary members do not affect guild renown or decay.

2. Adjust renown ransack to second level earned

3. Renown Decay is set at 250 (still a trial number) times number of member accounts that logged in within the last 24 hours (no max, min 1). This allows relief to small, medium, large, and huge monster gargantuan member guilds by not penalizing guilds for having less active members (like weekend warriors etc). The trial number of 250 is my best estimate of 25% of what a typical player will earn in renown in a typical session.

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...postcount=2847 Original Post

I don't have enough experience to comment on renown weekly cap except it would need to be a sliding weekly cap (so the last 168 hours).

thanks for reading this long winded post

[Tshober]

1. Add a probationary invite to the guild system - whereby guilds can invite new members on a two-week probationary basis so the recruit and the guild can see if the fit is right. Probationary members do not affect guild renown or decay.

I could only support this suggestion if it were optional at the guild leader's discretion. That way I could simply never use it because I see no need for it.

2. Adjust renown ransack to second level earned

Agreed. This change is needed.

3. Renown Decay is set at 250 (still a trial number) times number of member accounts that logged in within the last 24 hours (no max, min 1). This allows relief to small, medium, large, and huge monster gargantuan member guilds by not penalizing guilds for having less active members (like weekend warriors etc). The trial number of 250 is my best estimate of 25% of what a typical player will earn in renown in a typical session.

I don't like this suggestion for a couple of reasons. First, it takes us back in the direction of greater renown decay and all of the unfun renown grinding that entails. And, secondly, because it provides a disincentive to log on for players. Anyone who knows how the decay works would realize that logging on is what causes decay in this plan. So a player who might normally log on briefly on workdays just to check mail and chat with guildmates, would be strongly discouraged from doing that. He would be encouraged to ONLY log on when the could dedicate a lot of time to questing (and earning renown) and not log on at all unless he could dedicate a lot of time. I don't think we should be discouraging players from logging on. It could become a habit.

[Chaos000]

3. Renown Decay is set at 250 (still a trial number) times number of member accounts that logged in within the last 24 hours (no max, min 1). This allows relief to small, medium, large, and huge monster gargantuan member guilds by not penalizing guilds for having less active members (like weekend warriors etc). The trial number of 250 is my best estimate of 25% of what a typical player will earn in renown in a typical session.

Tshober raises a good point. The system should not go back to penalizing players just for logging in and being "counted" Whatever the Renown Decay is set at, provided a player has not gained at least 25% of it, renown gained should still be counted without assigning decay for the player. Therefore there is no disincentive to checking mail, chatting with guildmates, or killing a critter or two in a slayer area.

Renown decay can be set much higher at that point. Although the more we tweak this idea the more it deviates away from "keeping it simple"

I still say just toss up a renown gain cap for the week. Only guilds that overproduce and gain levels too quickly (huge guilds) will hit it while guilds of average and lower activity (smaller guilds) will not.

Here's another idea. XP potions grant a x2 renown bonus. Renown potions grant 10x more renown for tiny, 8x for small, 5x medium, 2x for large. Guild of 6 has the renown gain potential of 24, if they all drink renown potions now they have the renown gain potential of 240.

With a renown cap in place, it allows low activity guilds to progress while preventing high activity guilds to leave them in the dust.

[Tshober]

With a renown cap in place, it allows low activity guilds to progress while preventing high activity guilds to leave them in the dust.

Bah, why do we need to penalize guilds for being active? Why not just "allow low activity guilds to progress" period? Why does it matter that someone else's guild is leveling faster? If you are in a low activity guild and you want to stay in a low activity guild, then be happy that you are progressing and will eventualy get to where you want to be. We do need to fix it so that guilds of reasonable activity don't stall and become unable to progresss at all, but not every guild needs to get to the top just as fast as the most active guild does.

[UurlockYgmeov]

1. Add a probationary invite to the guild system - whereby guilds can invite new members on a two-week probationary basis so the recruit and the guild can see if the fit is right. Probationary members do not affect guild renown or decay.

I could only support this suggestion if it were optional at the guild leader's discretion. That way I could simply never use it because I see no need for it.

none

I like your idea Tshober - the probationary period should be able to be ended early or two types of invitations - one probationary and one immediate. Good suggestion.

2. Adjust renown ransack to second level earned

Agreed. This change is needed.

Having renown ransack not hit till second level earned...

so we all agree on this. allows guilds to push hard but not run away with things.

3. Renown Decay is set at 250 (still a trial number) times number of member accounts that logged in within the last 24 hours (no max, min 1). This allows relief to small, medium, large, and huge monster gargantuan member guilds by not penalizing guilds for having less active members (like weekend warriors etc). The trial number of 250 is my best estimate of 25% of what a typical player will earn in renown in a typical session.

I don't like this suggestion for a couple of reasons. First, it takes us back in the direction of greater renown decay and all of the unfun renown grinding that entails. And, secondly, because it provides a disincentive to log on for players. Anyone who knows how the decay works would realize that logging on is what causes decay in this plan. So a player who might normally log on briefly on workdays just to check mail and chat with guildmates, would be strongly discouraged from doing that. He would be encouraged to ONLY log on when the could dedicate a lot of time to questing (and earning renown) and not log on at all unless he could dedicate a lot of time. I don't think we should be discouraging players from logging on. It could become a habit.

Tshober raises a good point. The system should not go back to penalizing players just for logging in and being "counted" Whatever the Renown Decay is set at, provided a player has not gained at least 25% of it, renown gained should still be counted without assigning decay for the player. Therefore there is no disincentive to checking mail, chatting with guildmates, or killing a critter or two in a slayer area.

I see your points - and make this point back - that the amount of decay under my proposal would be much less than what is now for the vast majority of guilds - and penalize guilds less for those 'pop ins' (mail checks - light roleplaying sessions without killing things - etc.) than the current or original system did. It is a matter of perspective. From the point of view of looking out from within the proposed system I can see that. Looking out from the current system - I cannot agree.

I will explain. For those who pop-in a couple times a week they will be inactive several days as well - so when compared to the current 4 weeks until inactive - that is saving the guild no matter what. Not all players pop-in - maybe 35% - so for those weekend warriors (who aren't on 3-5 days a week) that is saving the guild and taking pressure off the guild (to only have uber-active players OLGANON.COM and boot the rest), and off the players (to be productive and generate renown every day).

I like your suggestion Chaos000 - really I do - but several things.

First, like you said it is complicating the implementation. If the explanation needs to be more than a couple simple sentences - it is too complicated. Complicated things break, complicated things have loop-holes (IRS code for example) - complicated things just generally generate frustration from the coders, the devs, and the players.

Second - there has to be decay. If King Arthur just sat around and did nothing all day - who would remember him? The system I propose does the most to minimize the impact of non-renown generating logins. With my suggestion - any guild that does any reasonable amount of questing would easily overcome renown. Just like moving a cart - you must first overcome gravity and friction. Once you start inertia would assist to carry you forward.

I wish I had more data from other guilds - so how about just doing some spot checking? See how many people show activity in your guild for the last 24 hours? compare that with the current modified accounts in the guild and track it over a week, or at least several times like on a Monday then Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday.

You will see that your guild will generate a substantial savings in decay just from that. And because the proposal changes from (level of the guild times the modified member count times a big number) to (member accounts active last 24 hours times a much smaller number) the decay is much more fair to all guilds of all sizes of all levels of all activity and play styles.

The current system is already punishing players for logging in to just check mail or chew-the-fat. The truth is that the current system doesn't provide relief for those that don't log in for a day or more at a time. The current system does discourage guilds from bringing in weekend warriors. The proposed system doesn't.

The current system also discourages guild from taking a chance on a new player, the proposed system doesn't.

Let's continue this discussion. Can we agree that this is a step in the right direction for all guilds?

BTW - you do generate renown in slayer areas.

[Tshober]

[I see your points - and make this point back - that the amount of decay under my proposal would be much less than what is now for the vast majority of guilds - and penalize guilds less for those 'pop ins' (mail checks - light roleplaying sessions without killing things - etc.) than the current or original system did. It is a matter of perspective. From the point of view of looking out from within the proposed system I can see that. Looking out from the current system - I cannot agree.

You are correct about the old decay system but you are totally incorrect about the current decay system. Under the current decay system, the players you named 'pop-ins' have no effect at all on decay. None. In your proposed plan and in the old decay system, they would and did cause extra decay with no renown to offset it. That does not happen in the currrent decay system because the number of members in the formula is fixed and NEVER changes.

[Tshober]

The current system also discourages guild from taking a chance on a new player, the proposed system doesn't.

How does the current decay system discourage taking a chance on a new player? Please explain this because I can see no such thing in the current decay system. I believe this statement is simply false.

[UurlockYgmeov]

You are correct about the old decay system but you are totally incorrect about the current decay system. Under the current decay system, the players you named 'pop-ins' have no effect at all on decay. None. In your proposed plan and in the old decay system, they would and did cause extra decay with no renown to offset it. That does not happen in the currrent decay system because the number of members in the formula is fixed and NEVER changes.

On this, you are correct.

However the proposed change is a more fair system to all guilds - because it scales to the ability of the guild to generate renown rather than on the level of the guild - which is not an indication of the guild's ability to generate renown.

How does the current decay system discourage taking a chance on a new player? Please explain this because I can see no such thing in the current decay system. I believe this statement is simply false.

But you support the idea of adding probationary guild invites? (You have already stated you did)

[Tshober]

But you support the idea of adding probationary guild invites? (You have already stated you did)

I have said I could only support it if I could turn it off permanently. I see no need for it at all.

[Chaos000]

The current system is already punishing players for logging in to just check mail or chew-the-fat. The truth is that the current system doesn't provide relief for those that don't log in for a day or more at a time. The current system does discourage guilds from bringing in weekend warriors. The proposed system doesn't.

I know that slayers generate renown... just wouldn't be enough. Players that generate very little renown shouldn't be counted under per/player decay at the same measure the very little renown they earn should not be invalidated.

The current system does not punish players for logging in. In fact the current system encourages players that have not logged in over 2 years to pop in and say hello. True renown gain potential is the total sum of active AND inactive players. Even taking a chance on a new player does not currently increase decay because it remains tied to the guild level and not guild size. Adding a person or removing a person has absolutely 0 effect on decay.

I am all for helping smaller guilds retain their size bonus when considering a new player. Decay is fine until it starts assigning gravity and friction to players gaining little to no renown. Then guilds are encouraged therefore (as per the old system) to chuck the dead weight to make it easier to gain inertia.

Therefore, any proposal that cannot exempt players gaining little to no renown from the per player formula is a step backwards not forward.

[Chaos000]

However the proposed change is a more fair system to all guilds - because it scales to the ability of the guild to generate renown rather than on the level of the guild - which is not an indication of the guild's ability to generate renown.

If we truly wanted a more fair system to all guilds decay... should scale based on how much renown was generated each week. Then we're not taxing the "potential" of the guild's gain but how much they are actually gaining on a regular basis.

[Tshober]

On this, you are correct.

However the proposed change is a more fair system to all guilds - because it scales to the ability of the guild to generate renown rather than on the level of the guild - which is not an indication of the guild's ability to generate renown.

So essentially you are saying a guild that generates more renown must be penalized for it so that all guilds can earn the same renown. Sorry, I am not a fan of penalizing activity. If a guild earns more renown, that guild should be allowed to keep that renown. If a guild earns less, well then that guild should get less.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I give up. seems everyone looks at things backwards - and I am just not glib enough to explain my thoughts. My fail.

[Tshober]

I give up. seems everyone looks at things backwards - and I am just not glib enough to explain my thoughts. My fail.

I am not trying to be glib. I seriously don't see the reason for all guilds to level at the same speed. I mean, if you really want them to all level at the same speed, then why even measure activity (renown earned) at all? If you want all guilds to level at the same speed, that can be accomplished most easily by just raising every guild's level based on how many days it has existed. No need to bother with renown at all, you can set any leveling speed you like, and all guilds will level at EXACTLY the same speed as every other guild.

If you take the trouble to measure activity (renown earned) then you logically should have it make a difference in some way. But if you then add in a decay (renown loss) that "scales to the ability of the guild to generate renown" then you have essentially subtracted out the activity difference you measured in the first place, to make them all equal again. So why even bother measuring activity at all?

[slarden]

I give up. seems everyone looks at things backwards - and I am just not glib enough to explain my thoughts. My fail.

Yeah, my thoughts too. It's pointless to argue with other players anyhow. Being in a small casual guild (or even a small guild with a mix of people that includes casual players) in this game just doesn't work due to decay.

I am done commenting on guild decay after this thread. All it did is get the people in my guild hassled in-game after people demanded the name of my guild to prove decay was a problem. This is my last post in the thread which I meant to make a week or so ago.

I saw alot of comments about Neverwinter on the forums and various things they like/don't like about it. After participating in the beta I think it is a better game for the typical person in a small casual guild. No decay, no need to spend game time recruiting, no in-game disadvantages for being in a small guild. We can just play the game with our friends without worrying about the guild system at all. My face-to-face gaming group already decided Neverwinter is a better fit after just one weekend. For someone like myself that spends more time on the game, it's not really an easy choice. But in the end you go where your friends are. That is why I started playing DDO in the first place. I don't want to have to solo just to combat guild decay or else have the guild move backwards.

For all the talk about small guilds wanting things handed to them, all I saw from most small guilds in this thread is that they wanted a chance to continue advancing and not get stuck by decay. The same thing large and small guilds asked for since I started the game. Large guilds received it from the new system and guilds of 10 or less did not.

Happy gaming to all.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I am not trying to be glib. I seriously don't see the reason for all guilds to level at the same speed.

...No need to bother with renown at all

Glib - Performed with a natural, offhand ease; in other words the ability to converse and make ones thought known and understood with ease. I lack that.

No, guilds should not progress at the same time.

But all guilds should have a fair reasonable amount of decay based upon the active membership. Active membership shouldn't unreasonably penalize guilds for having casual and weekend players.

You obviously don't understand renown. Renown decay is like the wear and tear on a characters gear. Bad analogy but the closest in game there is. Decay is necessary for the game just like wear and tear on gear. Both serve a necessary if albeit unpleasant function.

Yeah, my thoughts too. It's pointless to argue with other players anyhow. Being in a small casual guild (or even a small guild with a mix of people that includes casual players) in this game just doesn't work due to decay.

I am done commenting on guild decay after this thread. All it did is get the people in my guild hassled in-game after people demanded the name of my guild to prove decay was a problem. This is my last post in the thread which I meant to make a week or so ago.

I saw alot of comments about Neverwinter on the forums and various things they like/don't like about it. After participating in the beta I think it is a better game for the typical person in a small casual guild. No decay, no need to spend game time recruiting, no in-game disadvantages for being in a small guild. We can just play the game with our friends without worrying about the guild system at all. My face-to-face gaming group already decided Neverwinter is a better fit after just one weekend. For someone like myself that spends more time on the game, it's not really an easy choice. But in the end you go where your friends are. That is why I started playing DDO in the first place. I don't want to have to solo just to combat guild decay or else have the guild move backwards.

For all the talk about small guilds wanting things handed to them, all I saw from most small guilds in this thread is that they wanted a chance to continue advancing and not get stuck by decay. The same thing large and small guilds asked for since I started the game. Large guilds received it from the new system and guilds of 10 or less did not.

Happy gaming to all.

+1; All I've seen is posters finding fault in any suggestion - and only one or two submitting real solutions for peer review and improvement. The peer reviews just were negative - so they died.

In the end all I heard was people not seeing the whole picture - just their tree in the forest.

There always has to be a con for every pro.

Buy a house on a property. Pro is the property and ownership. Con is upkeep. The larger the property the more upkeep.

Being in a guild is a pro. The con is the upkeep aka decay. The smaller the guild - the less pooled resources (talent, plat, astral shards) and the less renown generated. If you are in a small membership guild you accept that for the perceived benefits, and you accept decay in a fair quantity as well. The larger the guild - the more pooled resources (talent, plat, astral shards) and more renown generated. If you are in a large membership guild you gladly accept the pro's and currently there are no con's to being in a large membership guild.

The original system was universally unfair to all guilds.

The current modified system is only unfair to small guilds; while the large guilds just get a free ride. Decay only mean something to small membership guilds. And since 90% of all guilds are small - that means the current system is hurting the gameplay experience for a overwhelming majority of players. Only the few, the elite in the large guilds have had their gaming experience improved. Now it is the small guilds that must boot inactive and casual players in order to survive. Its either that or grow into something they don't want - to loose why they wanted a small guild in the first place.

The current modified system is unfair and completely skewed; personally I don't care anymore. No one from the game that matters is participating in this thread, and only one solution (formula) has been forwarded - and it has been dismissed by the thread.

This thread has been talking about anything but what Tolero has asked us to talk about and forward solutions.

It hasn't happened, and because it isn't happening - not worth my time to waste anymore.

If you don't like my suggestion - fix it or forward concrete formula instead.

Yes I know the suggestion increases renown decay for larger guilds, and decreases it for smaller membership guilds. Compared to the system that was - large guilds will have less than 25% of the renown decay that they were having, but that is more than the ridiculous lack of decay they are having now. At the same time small membership guilds will also only have 25% of the renown decay they currently (and previously) had. Fair across the board.

So kindly close this thread since the only purpose it is serving now is to provide an outlet for useless talk instead of real solutions. Let the flaming of me begin.

[Zargarx]

There have been many different ideas and possible solutions mentioned in this thread.
Of special note was where one of my ideas and a few other ideas were specifically shot down by a dev. My suggestion was basically a sliding scale where each additional person would add quite a bit less decay than the person.
Response was no, decay should not increase at all by adding another person.
Didn't see any other specific comments since then except for a vague awareness of the issue for smaller guilds.
I can't think of a fix given that decay must remain. Increasiing multipliers can help somewhat, but only to a point and likely would create other issues such as large drop in multiplier if add someone so potentially making kicking out low active in smaller guilds a beneffit to the guild.

Anyway, hope to hear more from the devs soon...

[Nestroy]

(...)+1; All I've seen is posters finding fault in any suggestion - and only one or two submitting real solutions for peer review and improvement. The peer reviews just were negative - so they died.

In the end all I heard was people not seeing the whole picture - just their tree in the forest.

There always has to be a con for every pro.

Buy a house on a property. Pro is the property and ownership. Con is upkeep. The larger the property the more upkeep.

Being in a guild is a pro. The con is the upkeep aka decay. The smaller the guild - the less pooled resources (talent, plat, astral shards) and the less renown generated. If you are in a small membership guild you accept that for the perceived benefits, and you accept decay in a fair quantity as well. The larger the guild - the more pooled resources (talent, plat, astral shards) and more renown generated. If you are in a large membership guild you gladly accept the pro's and currently there are no con's to being in a large membership guild.

The original system was universally unfair to all guilds.

The current modified system is only unfair to small guilds; while the large guilds just get a free ride. Decay only mean something to small membership guilds. And since 90% of all guilds are small - that means the current system is hurting the gameplay experience for a overwhelming majority of players. Only the few, the elite in the large guilds have had their gaming experience improved. Now it is the small guilds that must boot inactive and casual players in order to survive. Its either that or grow into something they don't want - to loose why they wanted a small guild in the first place.

The current modified system is unfair and completely skewed; personally I don't care anymore. No one from the game that matters is participating in this thread, and only one solution (formula) has been forwarded - and it has been dismissed by the thread.

This thread has been talking about anything but what Tolero has asked us to talk about and forward solutions.

It hasn't happened, and because it isn't happening - not worth my time to waste anymore.

If you don't like my suggestion - fix it or forward concrete formula instead.

Yes I know the suggestion increases renown decay for larger guilds, and decreases it for smaller membership guilds. Compared to the system that was - large guilds will have less than 25% of the renown decay that they were having, but that is more than the ridiculous lack of decay they are having now. At the same time small membership guilds will also only have 25% of the renown decay they currently (and previously) had. Fair across the board.

So kindly close this thread since the only purpose it is serving now is to provide an outlet for useless talk instead of real solutions. Let the flaming of me begin.

So far nobody toasted you... I am mostly of your opinion, so I will not use the flame thrower at ny point of your post.

Regarding solutions, I took the liberty, from time to time several pages past and in other, much older threads, to suggest solutions and possible changes, some better and others worse. So far they as all the other suggestions in here, good or bad, did not even get ignored by anybody, as far as I can tell.

Most solutions would depend on any guidelines from the devs of what they think renown decay still serves as a purpose. There had been clear statements a long time ago that got finally obsolete with the decay changes for big guilds. Then the decay was to make it impossible for most guilds to eventually reach lv. 100. And to stay on the top with big time activity only. Now all you have to do is to get big.

So what would be the purpose of renown decay in the new system?

Then we can start to discuss solutions and formulae. Otherwise this is only a lesson in futillity.