Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

atomized carbon particulates. jeez - kindly stop beating the kobold - what will the neighbor's think? kobold remembers the waterworks!

Kobold Comment


Decay exists. Decay is not up for an existential debate.

So you just made it up. I should have known better than to treat your post seriously.

[UurlockYgmeov]

So you just made it up. I should have known better than to treat your post seriously.

Fling mud and call me a liar - doesn't change the facts (Decay is real and exists).

You've made your point repeatedly, now you are just obfuscating.

Now how about offering something constructive and useful other than the broken record of 'No decay.' Heck a kobold singing in a shower has more harmony and tone than that record.

PS - and kindly don't treat most of my posts as serious - ok serious as a kobold with 5 barrels on its back.... (Seriously? Seriously! And don't call me Shirley!) my posts quoting you are supposed to be inane rhetoric to point out the nugatory attempts to blow smoke to hide the real topic; which is how to fairly assign decay to all guilds of all sizes of all levels of all styles of play.

[Vanshilar]

If an account countributing 0 is counted as active even if they don't really affect a guild's renown earning potential, it does affect the analysis.

How so?

I think the fundamental misconception is this: an active account is one that is logging in, but could gain 0 renown (i.e. not gain any renown). In contrast, an inactive account, because it is not logging in, definitely gains 0 renown. But an active account because he's logging in, is presumably using the guild's benefits (such as guild chat if nothing else). An inactive account is not. Until an inactive account logs in (at which point he becomes active), he's not contributing to renown nor detracting from renown, so inactives can be ignored in the analysis. Active accounts, even if they gain 0 renown, cannot, since they have the capacity to gain renown -- which is what the potential is measuring.

In fact, this was the reason for classifying some accounts as inactive in the first place. When the renown system was first released, there was no distinction on this -- an account was an account and counted towards everything. But people pointed out that their guilds had accounts that hadn't logged in for years, yet were still decreasing everyone's size bonus (if that applied) and increasing decay, although pretty much by definition those accounts weren't gaining any renown nor using any guild benefits. Turbine's implementing this distinction is specifically so that guilds can ignore them in terms of the renown system.

Inactive accounts were not considered under the old system, in the new system because decay is fixed... an active account contributing 0 and an inactive account contributing 0 contribute the same in terms of a guild's earning potential.

No, because an active account can always choose to gain renown, since he's logged into the game (by definition). An inactive account cannot (unless he logs in, but then he becomes active and is no longer an inactive account). And that's what the potential is about.

Also, an active account, by logging in, will decrease the guild size bonus for all other players, if the guild is small enough. This is because the active account can contribute renown to make up for it. An inactive account will not, because it will definitely not contribute any renown. The potential takes this into account.

Larger guilds in comparison to smaller guilds have a higher number of inactive accounts. It can be reasonably concluded that increased size will eventually result in naturally decreased activity.

How do you justify this statement? How is it a reasonable conclusion that increased size results in less activity?

Are you saying that a larger guild will have more inactives in an absolute sense (i.e. total number of inactive accounts) or in a proportional sense (i.e. the larger the guild, the higher % of accounts will be inactive)? In either case, why would it mean that having more total (active + inactive) accounts would mean there are less total active accounts? Does adding an inactive account means that active players will stop logging in? Are you saying that a large guild by virtue of being large means that less (total) people are going to log in? That's the implication of your statement if increased size can result in decreased activity, if I'm reading it correctly -- that a 200 total account guild could likely have say 150 actives and 50 inactives, but then a 250 total account guild likely has 125 actives and 125 inactives (i.e. total number of actives will decrease as there are more total accounts). How does this make sense?

A guild's renown potential increasing by size does not guarantee increase in renown earned. Therefore if decay IS to scale, it should scale based on something other than size. Scaling decay on "actual renown earned" would be a more fair measurement to use as (larger) guilds of high renown potential and only 1% of guilds over very low renown potential are ever likely to hit it.

It does not guarantee it, but the renown gain will be >= 0, i.e. will never be negative (guild size bonus and renown decay notwithstanding). But more fundamentally, the potential is showing how much a guild could gain if you keep the activity level constant. So if the guild leadership in guilds of any size are able to keep each member logging in just as often and gaining as just as much renown (i.e. if each member gains X base renown per day, where X is constant regardless of guild size), then a guild will always get more renown as its size increases. And that's the point of showing the potential.

No, you did not say a member should cost more and I never claimed you did.

You are the one who feels entitled. Essentially, you advocate penalizing members of larger guilds for being in larger guilds. You want to see their renown that they earn taxed heavily because they are in a large guild but you do not want your renown taxed as heavily because you are in a small or tiny guild.

Note that this was specifically what I was responding to in my reply.

You did say (mathematically) that the renown earned by each member of a large guild should count less toward leveling than the renown earned by each member of a smaller guild. That is because you claim that every comparison of guild activity should not actually compare the renown the guilds earn but rather compare the average renown that the members of the guild earn.

I already discussed how averages work in my previous post. Were any of the points I brought up about it unclear? Seeing as how you didn't address any of them but ignored them completely, and yet are simply repeating the same point that I just refuted in my last post.

This is not a proper way to logically compare guilds on renown. Doing the comparison your way, by player averages, means that the renown earned by each member of a 300 member guild counts 30 times less than the renown earned by each member of a 10 member guild. Your method completely ignores the fact that the 300 member guild actually earned 30 times the amount of renown that the 10 member guild earned in the same time period. You seek to hide that reality by averaging it away. But the 300 member guild actually looted 30 times as much renown. They did more work to earn it, 30 times as many player-hours spent looting renown. You can try to hide it by averaging it away but that does not make it untrue.

And you're ignoring that a 300-member guild also has 30 times more people using the benefits and 30 times more people that can contribute to their upkeep, which I already addressed in the previous post. Again, I addressed these points, and yet you claim I ignored them ("hide that reality") while you ignore the points I brought up about them.

Have you thought through my restaurant example? Are you claiming that restaurant should charge the same total price regardless of if they're giving full meals to each of a group of 10 people or 300 people? And if so, how does that not encourage people to simply join larger groups to amortize that cost, in contradiction of Turbine's stated stance of not encouraging any particular size?

I also addressed it when I discussed how a group should subdivide into guilds. If Turbine is true about trying to implement their stated stance, then a group of similarly active players should end up with the same benefits regardless of how many guilds they subdivide into. This is because how much renown the group (overall) is gaining is constant regardless of how many guilds they subdivide into. I specifically addressed what you're saying and yet you say I ignored it.

In fact, most of the examples earlier in this thread ignored the critical aspect of more people using guild benefits, just as you did. For example, yes having more people push a schoolbus means that it's easier on each person (i.e. each person has to put in less effort). But that example is incomplete because it doesn't capture the other half of the guild system -- namely, that people get renown to use a guild's benefits (and more people are using them the larger a guild gets). So in the schoolbus example, would it make sense for someone to pay a group more for using more people to push the same schoolbus -- i.e. pay $200 for 10 people to push a schoolbus yet pay $400 for 20 people to push the same schoolbus the same distance? Yet this is exactly what the renown system does.

Fundamentally we are discussing a guild leveling system. We should be comparing guilds, not comparing player averages.

No, we are talking about how the number of members in a guild affects different guild characteristics (namely, renown gain, renown decay, and benefits from renown). This is because Turbine's stated goal is to have a system that does not encourage any particular guild size, in which case talking about guilds along the lines of how the number of members affects its characteristics is central to the discussion.

Assuming a constant renown gain per player is a way to isolate the effect of size on a guild's characteristics, since a guild's renown gain depends on both size and activity. This allows us to keep the discussion focused on the size aspect of guilds.

Renown per member (per day) is a proxy for the level of effort that players are putting into the renown system. My point is that if a player is gaining say 1000 renown each day, and he joins a guild of like-minded players (in terms of effort into renown), then his benefits should be the same regardless of he joined a small guild or in a large guild. This stays consistent with the "effort = reward" principle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying that the benefits that members of a guild get should just depend on the total renown gained by all the members. So in other words, each member of a guild of 500 members who each gain 100 renown (50000 renown total), should get the same benefits as each member of a guild of 50 members who each gain 1000 renown (50000 renown total). But this means that just because they're in a 50-member guild, each member in the latter is paying 10x as much as the former to get the same benefit as each member in the former guild. (And 10x as many benefits are given out to the former guild as well.) How does this not encourage players to simply join large guilds, if the system presents a player with the choice of working a certain amount for some benefit or working 10x harder for the same benefit if they're in a guild of 1/10 the size? How does your vision for the guild system square with Turbine's position of not encouraging any particular guild size?

[Tshober]

And you're ignoring that a 300-member guild also has 30 times more people using the benefits and 30 times more people that can contribute to their upkeep, which I already addressed in the previous post. Again, I addressed these points, and yet you claim I ignored them ("hide that reality") while you ignore the points I brought up about them.

You have done nothing at all to refute the fact that your method of using player averages, rather than total renown earned, means that the renown earned by each member of a large guild counts less toward guild advancement than the renown earned by each member of a smaller guild. In the case I cited, 30 times less. How do you justify this inequity? Every member of the larger guild worked just as hard to gather that renown as the members of the smaller guild did, yet their same effort counts 30 times less. That is a totally unjustifiable inequity. It is a blatant bias against large guilds.


The only thing I can see in your arguments that is any kind of justification for such a bias is your claim that large guilds will derive more benefit from their ship amenities because more players will be using those amenities. I don't believe that justifies counting their renown less than the renown that smaller guilds earn. The amenities are set up in DDO such that once earned they have unlimited use with only a token rental cost. I know in my guild, anyone who wants a ship invite to use our amenities, gets one simply by asking. This structure encourages social interaction and cooperation. I believe that is good for the game. That is how your restaurant analogy fails because DDO ship amenities don't work at all like meals in a restaurant work. They provide an unlimited resource. If a restaurant had unlimited resources then they might well behave much differently.

Your argument that my perferred method encourages larger guilds is correct. I concede that point. Any system that encourages inclusiveness will naturally encourage more players banding together. Just as any system that encourages exclusion, like the old decay system, will encourage smaller guilds. There is no getting around that. However, unlike the old decay system, my preferred system would at least allow all active guilds, regardless of size, to advance and to eventually reach the highest levels and attain all of the benefits. I don't believe you are arguing for any such equality.

[UurlockYgmeov]

...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying that the benefits that members of a guild get should just depend on the total renown gained by all the members. So in other words, each member of a guild of 500 members who each gain 100 renown (50000 renown total), should get the same benefits as each member of a guild of 50 members who each gain 1000 renown (50000 renown total). But this means that just because they're in a 50-member guild, each member in the latter is paying 10x as much as the former to get the same benefit as each member in the former guild. (And 10x as many benefits are given out to the former guild as well.) How does this not encourage players to simply join large guilds, if the system presents a player with the choice of working a certain amount for some benefit or working 10x harder for the same benefit if they're in a guild of 1/10 the size? How does your vision for the guild system square with Turbine's position of not encouraging any particular guild size?

+1 if you are in a small guild - +500 if you are in a large guild.

Kobold still hate you.

well spoken.

Your argument that my perferred method encourages larger guilds is correct. I concede that point. Any system that encourages inclusiveness will naturally encourage more players banding together. Just as any system that encourages exclusion, like the old decay system, will encourage smaller guilds. There is no getting around that. However, unlike the old decay system, my preferred system would at least allow all active guilds, regardless of size, to advance and to eventually reach the highest levels and attain all of the benefits. I don't believe you are arguing for any such equality.

there should be not preferential treatment concerning guild size, and not all guilds should reach the highest levels.

Renown is like taxes, like the taxes in RL; or the taxes in the AH - should affect everyone who chooses to receive the benefits (by being a member) - and affect them equally.

[Chaos000]

Well - total renown gained per week is based upon number of members of a guild. The more members - general rule is more renown.

Number of members of a guild does NOT determine the total renown gained per week. General rule works only if ALL members considered “active” WILL gain renown beyond a certain threshold (I will define those that do not as “casual”).

Since we all know that many members considered “active” do NOT gain renown beyond this threshold, the general rule will only work on a theoretical level but not necessarily in practice.

Basing decay on the “per *active* player potential for renown gain” goes right back to the old system that failed because assigning decay per player will associate casual players with additional decay and booting the “dead weight” removes this decay.

Solution? Players that can be defined as “casual” should be exempt from any per-player assignment of decay or size bonuses while not invalidating the renown they do earn. If the contention is that guilds are overproducing renown (some due to size), then assign additional decay to guilds that can most afford it without penalizing guilds who are under producing renown despite their size.

[Chaos000]

No, because an active account can always choose to gain renown, since he's logged into the game (by definition). An inactive account cannot (unless he logs in, but then he becomes active and is no longer an inactive account). And that's what the potential is about.

Also, an active account, by logging in, will decrease the guild size bonus for all other players, if the guild is small enough. This is because the active account can contribute renown to make up for it. An inactive account will not, because it will definitely not contribute any renown. The potential takes this into account.

How do you account for an active account that does not use the guild’s benefits such as a parked bank toon, social RP, and/or Auction house placeholder? If an active account has multiple characters in multiple guilds is their “potential” somehow increased?

With the current change, accounts that are not very active, increase decay as much as inactive accounts. All active accounts have the same unrealized potential as inactive accounts until they actually contribute renown.

How do you justify this statement? How is it a reasonable conclusion that increased size results in less activity?

When you divide equally the efforts of each person, for each person you add with 0 gain results in less activity for each person with more than 0 gain. Increased size, higher probability of having additional members with 0 gain. If increased size always resulted in more activity, smaller guilds could not ever hope to outpace larger guilds. Under the old system, max rank would not be dominated by just medium and small guilds.

It does not guarantee it, but the renown gain will be >= 0, i.e. will never be negative (guild size bonus and renown decay notwithstanding). But more fundamentally, the potential is showing how much a guild could gain if you keep the activity level constant. So if the guild leadership in guilds of any size are able to keep each member logging in just as often and gaining as just as much renown (i.e. if each member gains X base renown per day, where X is constant regardless of guild size), then a guild will always get more renown as its size increases. And that's the point of showing the potential.

When I mentioned negative renown I meant with the consideration of guild size bonus and renown decay. Unrealized potential under the old system invalidated a player’s renown gain and displaced the decay burden to the rest of the guild.

Your calculation of potential doesn’t take into consideration the scaling difficulty of keeping activity level constant as the guild size increases. Each member gaining X base renown regardless of size remains theoretical and unproven. A member gaining X renown in a separate guild still nets 0 renown despite meeting their potential.

[Tshober]

+Renown is like taxes, like the taxes in RL; or the taxes in the AH - should affect everyone who chooses to receive the benefits (by being a member) - and affect them equally.

Decay is like taxes. And the effect of that tax SHOULD be equal, as you say. But unfortunately your proposed system taxes the renown that is earned by players in large guilds at a far, far higher rate than the renown earned by players in small guilds. Take a simple example of a player in a 10 player guild and a player in a 300 player guild and do the math. Your plan taxes the player in the 300 player guild at 30 times the percentage rate that the player in the 10 man guild is taxed. If it did not, the 300 player guild would level faster. To get them to level at about the same speed you have to tax the players in the 300 player guild at a tax rate that is about 30 times as high because that guild earned 30 times as much renown in total. You have to tax away far, far more of the large guild member's earnings to get the two guilds to level at even remotely the same speed.

Taking the analogy of taxes further, saying that you want all guilds to level at about the same speed is like saying you want all income earners to earn about the same amount of income per year. The only way you can accomplsih that is by taxing those that earm more at a higher percentage, and those that earn MUCH more at a MUCH higher percentage. It's the same with guilds and renown. Very large guilds earn much more renown than small guilds so to get them to level at the same speed you have to tax the large guilds at a much higher percentage. Do the math if you don't believe me, and calculate the two tax rates yourself.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Decay is like taxes. And the effect of that tax SHOULD be equal, as you say. But unfortunately your proposed system taxes the renown that is earned by players in large guilds at a far, far higher rate than the renown earned by players in small guilds. Take a simple example of a player in a 10 player guild and a player in a 300 player guild and do the math. Your plan taxes the player in the 300 player guild at 30 times the percentage rate that the player in the 10 man guild is taxed. If it did not, the 300 player guild would level faster. To get them to level at about the same speed you have to tax the players in the 300 player guild at a tax rate that is about 30 times as high because that guild earned 30 times as much renown in total. You have to tax away far, far more of the large guild member's earnings to get the two guilds to level at even remotely the same speed.

Kindly don't misquote me - I have repeatably said that guilds should not level at the same speed.

And

you don't tax renown earned...

and if a guild has 30 people in the guild it should pay decay on the upkeep of those 30; if it has 300 people in the guild - it should pay decay on the upkeep of those 300. Period. Fair. decay times 30 is proportionally fair to decay times 300.

Thank you for proving our point!

Decay is NOT about leveling a guild. It is about the upkeep and maintenance.

Leveling is about how much renown is earned. Two separate distinct issues.

You are looking at it like a kobold with one barrel vs a kobold with five barrels....

it isn't about the kobold - it is about the barrels; in this analogy the kobold is the guild and the barrels are the members. You want the decay based upon the kobold when it is about the barrels.

Enjoy CC!

[Tshober]

you don't tax renown earned...

and if a guild has 30 people in the guild it should pay decay on the upkeep of those 30; if it has 300 people in the guild - it should pay decay on the upkeep of those 300. Period. Fair. decay times 30 is proportionally fair to decay time 300.

You keep changing your story. First you say it's like taxes in RL and the AH. Now you say it's not like taxes, it's like an overhead per player for upkeep. Okay, as long as it's a FIXED overhead times the number of players, it comes out the same. A 300 player guild will still level 30 times as fast as a 10 player guild, even after subtracting a fixed overhead per player. Here is a simple example:

We have 2 guilds. A 10 player guild and a 300 player guild. To keep the math simple we will assume that every player in both guilds earns 1000 renown per day on average.

After 1 day we have:

10 player guild = 10,000 renown
300 player guild = 300,000 renown

Now we will assume that each player in both guilds gets a decay of 500 renown per day (50% decay rate) for overhead/upkeep.

10 player guild = 10,000 - (500 * 10) = 5,000 renown
300 player guild = 300,000 - (500 * 300) = 150,000 renown


As you can see, the 300 player guild still levels 30 times as fast as the 10 player guild even though the 300 player guild suffered 30 times the decay (150,000 versus 5,000). If this is essentially your proposal, then I am actually okay with it. The language you used before led me to believe you were proposing something much different.

[UurlockYgmeov]

You keep changing your story.

again - you are calling me a liar. I haven't changed my story - just had to keep making the explanation simpler and simpler. As I have stated - I am not very glib and explaining things is not my forte.

We get it. You have made your point. Nobody likes decay, its all kobold sewery.

As you can see, the 300 player guild still levels 30 times as fast as the 10 player guild even though the 300 player guild suffered 30 times the decay (150,000 versus 5,000). If this is essentially your proposal, then I am actually okay with it. (emphasis added)

In short - essentially yes. A guild with more active players will almost always level faster than a guild with fewer active players. (there are only a couple exceptions - and P2P farming is one)

So - how to adjust decay to be fair to all guilds of all sizes of all play styles while allowing guilds to progress at their own speed, and with the real situation where a neglected guild will decline, atrophy, and wither.

In order to be fair - the decay system HAS to include the guild size and the guild level.

However, in order to be sensitive to different play styles, only those accounts that have logged into the game in the 24 hour window prior to decay assignment should be included in the math. this alone would be a simple and extremely effective correction that might just fix the entire issue

so if a guild is assigned decay at 10:00 everyday - only those guild accounts that logged into the game from 10:01 the previous day until 10:00 the current day would be included in the math - all other accounts would be 'inactive.'

e.g. : 93 accounts out of 300 accounts log in during that time perior - so decay would only use 93 as the modified active accounts. I know this doesn't make sense - but it does.

With that in mind - I will be back with charts and graphs and go all Perot on your eyes!

[Chaos000]

So - how to adjust decay to be fair to all guilds of all sizes of all play styles while allowing guilds to progress at their own speed, and with the real situation where a neglected guild will decline, atrophy, and wither.

In order to be fair - the decay system HAS to include the guild size and the guild level.

However, in order to be sensitive to different play styles, only those accounts that have logged into the game in the 24 hour window prior to decay assignment should be included in the math. this alone would be a simple and extremely effective correction that might just fix the entire issue

Amend it to only accounts that have gained any renown in the 24 hour window prior to decay assignment and I have no issue with it.

Unless of course they decide to allow renown gain for checking the auction house.

(I would much rather they scale renown ransack based on size instead)

Sidenote: why not have fixed decay based on guild size categories?

[UurlockYgmeov]

Amend it to only accounts that have gained any renown in the 24 hour window prior to decay assignment and I have no issue with it.

Unless of course they decide to allow renown gain for checking the auction house.

(I would much rather they scale renown ransack based on size instead)

Sidenote: why not have fixed decay based on guild size categories?

as much as I like the idea it would mean adding a huge tracking overhead to the game. Meaning more bugs, more lag, and less time devoted to fixing bugs, lag and letting us stick those augment crystals into bags.

The suggestion would work because it is already using existing tracking and code - just changing the variable of when from 30 days to 1 day.

[Chaos000]

as much as I like the idea it would mean adding a huge tracking overhead to the game. Meaning more bugs, more lag, and less time devoted to fixing bugs, lag and letting us stick those augment crystals into bags.

The suggestion would work because it is already using existing tracking and code - just changing the variable of when from 30 days to 1 day.

I guess I can understand that somewhat. I still hold to the philosophy that it should always (no exceptions) be more beneficial to retain a player than to boot them regardless of their level of activity.

With a per player decay, how does turbine prevent less active players from being a "burden " to the rest of the guild due to their personal decay consistently being higher than their renown earned?

For example I log in almost every night (inventory/AH maintenance as reasonably priced mana pots and dimension door scrolls aren't common) but can only really "play" once a week. I also have 5 characters I check regularly 3 on different servers all 5 in different guilds of various sizes and only gain renown on one character. As an "active" account, should I get hit with 5 times the decay or once? and should my renown earned be applied to all 5 guilds?

I benefit from the current changes, under the per/player burden system (which is really a per/character burden system) multiplying my decay hardly seems fair.

[Tshober]

With a per player decay, how does turbine prevent less active players from being a "burden " to the rest of the guild due to their personal decay consistently being higher than their renown earned?

He wants to go back to a "light' version of the old decay system. Where there is more decay than there is now, more unfun renown grinding, and casual/social players are shunned again (fewer of them though, hence the "light"). As you point out, his plan also contains a disincentive to log in. It will be obvious to all but the most newbish players that logging in is what causes decay under his plan so anyone who wants to log in to check AH/mail and say hello to friends will be discouraged from doing so. There will be strong incentive to never log in to DDO unless you can dedicate a large amount of time to questing and earning renown. I don't think that it is a good idea to discourage players from logging in. It could become a habit.

Fundamentally, DDO guilds should be inclusive. No players should be undesirable to guilds purely from a renown perspective. His plan does not satisfy that criteria, even though it is less exclusive than the old decay system. The new decay system is superior because it ensures that no players are undesirable due to earning less renown than they cost in decay.

His plan could be modified pretty simply so that it does meet the inclusiveness criteria. You could simply ensure (mathematically) that no player can ever lose more renown to decay than they earn. This could be done by changing the daily decay formula to cap the decay generated by each player to the amount of renown the player earned. There would be no need to keep track of log ins or when someone last earned some renown. And it makes good logical sense too. No player can ever earn less renown than zero. This takes away the incentive to kick/shun players that earn less renown (unless you are at the 1000 member guild size cap).

I do not expect him to like this idea though, because he wants to punish guilds for having casual/social players in their membership. That's why he keeps saying "not all guilds should be able to reach 100." But it would work and it would be easier to implement than his suggestion. It would, however, not be notably superior to the current system nor to a system that had no decay at all. Decay just causes strife and unfun renown grinding, and it accomplishes nothing useful to offset those negatives.

[Chaos000]

His plan could be modified pretty simply so that it does meet the inclusiveness criteria. You could simply ensure (mathematically) that no player can ever lose more renown to decay than they earn. This could be done by changing the daily decay formula to cap the decay generated by each player to the amount of renown the player earned. There would be no need to keep track of log ins or when someone last earned some renown. And it makes good logical sense too. No player can ever earn less renown than zero.

Decay deducts from player's total renown gained to the lowest common denominator of 0. A guild won't truly be at 0 till all individual members renown contribution has whittled away but it does remove the phenomena of shifted burden.

The renown left by recently booted players will decay till it is at 0, renown of legacy accounts won't decay.

I can live with that.

I have no issue with per player decay provided individual decay does not spillover to become an added burden for another player.

Oh and in response to larger house bigger upkeep, if a person invites another player from a different guild to gain their guild's ship buffs should it come at a renown cost from the player benefitting?

No issue with that either. less people would ask for a ship invite.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Fundamentally, DDO guilds should be inclusive.

Essentially correct - but there will always be those who don't play well with others, and those who just don't listen. Hence the strongly recommended 'probationary' guild invite.

does not satisfy that criteria, even though it is less exclusive than the old decay system.

it does. You are just looking through the telescope through the wrong end.

new decay system is superior because it ensures that no players are undesirable due to earning less renown than they cost in decay.

except to guilds that aren't huge or are made mostly of casual players... Kindly try to see the entire forest... see the issues from all points of view. Guilds of less than maybe 100 accounts will still be practicing your policy of if not uber-active boot them. Fundamentally unfair. Nothing has changed for those guilds (which are over 95% of all guilds) with this temporary patch, a poor patch in this sense.

could simply ensure (mathematically) that no player can ever lose more renown to decay than they earn.

couple of basic errors in that logic - first more overhead. second that concept / implementation would preclude a guild from ever loosing renown - ie decay - ever. A guild could NEVER loose a level except if a character leaves.

Take this to the logic extreme example --- Guilds of 1000 members.... talk about LAGMONSTER kibbles and bit! Talk about unhappy guild members....

because he wants to punish guilds for having casual/social players in their membership.

Kindly do not put words into my mouth, mahalo in advance! This is not about 'punishing' guilds, rather the opposite.

I do not expect him to like this idea though

It is not that I don't like ideas, or yours because they are yours, rather the proposals are incompletely thought through and extremely unfair to 95% of existing guilds.

What we all want is a system that is fair to all guilds, of all sizes, of all levels, of all styles of play that still allows for the eventual decay and perishment based upon neglect and entropy.

No player can ever earn less renown than zero.

Here you are correct because no character CAN ever earn less than zero renown. Mathematically impossible and would probably cause the server to go to bit heaven.

to keep track of log ins

system already does for many many many many reasons besides guild renown.

he keeps saying "not all guilds should be able to reach 100."

first, it isn't just myself saying that. It is official Turbine doctine. It is also common sense.

Again, not all guilds should be able to reach level one hundred. Reaching level 100 should take effort and only be the penultimate achievement for highly motivated guilds. It is like saying all people should be able to win the lottery - ok - so everyone wins, but what is it worth when everyone who enters wins? Much less than the price of admission.

But it would work and it would be easier to implement than his suggestion.

All suggestion would work - but would it be fair, and simple to implement? Absolutely not to both queries. Essentially it is the 'no decay' idea, just presented with a little smoke and mirrors, and a greater potential and highly probable negative fallout.

First - implementing it would require more code, code that would add server load, network load, storage load, and all that code would probably cause unintentional and unpredictable bugs...

Second - there will always be decay. We don't hear you griping endlessly about AH overhead? Equipment wear and tear? Vendor markup and the list goes on.... Heck - why not eliminate spell mats as well? Because these things are in the spirit of the game.

a system that had no decay at all.

see above point.... about smoke and mirrors and hiding bugs in spin... kobold not that blind. Kindly put out the cigarette - there is no smoking in DDO. Kobold don't want cancer.

Decay just causes strife and unfun renown grinding

generating renown should just be like generating platinum.... just part of the game - which it is, and will continue to be.

This isn't about generating --- it, (as we have clearly and plainly stated numerous times) is about decay.

Who's grinding now except the 95% of guilds that are hurt by the modified decay system.

Decay ... accomplishes nothing useful

you need to look past your branch of the tree and see not only the tree. Decay is a necessary part of the guild system.

Are there Hero's without Villains? No.

What value is renown if all that matters is how long a guild has been around?

What value are accomplishments if there wasn't obstacles, hurdles, and setbacks to success?

The answer is simple.. without the negative, the positive has no meaning.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I guess I can understand that somewhat. I still hold to the philosophy that it should always (no exceptions) be more beneficial to retain a player than to boot them regardless of their level of activity.

With a per player decay, how does turbine prevent less active players from being a "burden " to the rest of the guild due to their personal decay consistently being higher than their renown earned?

For example I log in almost every night (inventory/AH maintenance as reasonably priced mana pots and dimension door scrolls aren't common) but can only really "play" once a week. I also have 5 characters I check regularly 3 on different servers all 5 in different guilds of various sizes and only gain renown on one character. As an "active" account, should I get hit with 5 times the decay or once? and should my renown earned be applied to all 5 guilds?

I benefit from the current changes, under the per/player burden system (which is really a per/character burden system) multiplying my decay hardly seems fair.

sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Been mulling over your posers and how best to explain and respond.

Agree - that it should almost always be beneficial to retain characters in a guild. Sometimes things happen - and no system can, well, to quote someone with better oratory skills

“You can please some of the people some of the time all of the people some of the time some of the people all of the time but you can never please all of the people all of the time.”

Under the temporary system and the existing underlying system (e.g. to use the battle box before The Consortium arranges for your backpack to be pilfered by kobolds in revenge for booting them from Delera's)- those that log in just to check mail or other non-renown generating activities are being penalized much worse than the proposed system.

Here is why: you log in a character and are considered active for a month after. Under the proposed system you actually are considered active for a day. So if you don't play that character(account) that day - you don't affect renown. So rather than always affecting decay, you shift to sometimes affecting decay.

Yes, the most cynical guilds and uber-active (hear www.olganon.org) players will see it as - you are costing us renown... so maybe that guild isn't a good fit. Not all guilds and players fit together well, hence the ability to choose what guild you are in, and the strongly recommended 'probationary' guild invite.

It isn't Turbine's responsibility (nor should it ever be) to prevent players from being a burden. Only players can make themselves a burden or to choose to not be one. I guess it all depends upon the philosophy of each individual guild.

If a player chooses to join a guild with the intention of using the ship and amenities - then they also choose (de facto) to help upkeep the guild, in at least the renown.

If a player just wishes to be social, which we all like to do from time to time - then they should choose an appropriate guild with like-minded play-styles.

What the system should do is strive to allow guilds to keep causal and weekend warriors within reason. A person shouldn't be 'undesirable' to the majority of guilds because they are new, or an accountant who plays once a week, and maybe not at all during EOQ, EOM, EOY etc.

Just like being friendly to the enviroment shouldn't preclude sticking a red-hot poker to a leach who has decided to make you lunch, or to swat that mosquito who things you are a bottle of Château Lafite Rothschild.

For clarification (which you asked for) - an account is referring to all the characters in a guild from the same account. So if you had one character or 20 in the same guild (from the same account) - they would only count towards the modified size as one.

Now if you have multiple accounts, or your account is in multiple guilds, or multiple servers - each guild you are in that you played with (logged in) would include your account in their modified size.

However, a singular character can only affect the guild they are in, and that character (or another from the same account that is also in the same guild) cannot affect any other guilds modifed size unless they leave and join another.

For those that have storage toons, or Hagglebots, or AH bots - do they need to be part of the guild? If one says yes - because need the CHR shrine, or this or that amenity - then they are benefiting from being in the guild and should affect decay.

The current temporary system is not a per/character burden system for all the guilds. Only for the smaller guilds. Once a guild gets past 20 accounts - then it isn't, which isn't fair for 95% of guilds and players.

We sympathize that the current system is advantageous to you - and is not our desire to penalize you or others. Just want a system that is fair to all.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Decay deducts from player's total renown gained to the lowest common denominator of 0. A guild won't truly be at 0 till all individual members renown contribution has whittled away but it does remove the phenomena of shifted burden.

The renown left by recently booted players will decay till it is at 0, renown of legacy accounts won't decay.

I can live with that.a

I have no issue with per player decay provided individual decay does not spillover to become an added burden for another player.

Oh and in response to larger house bigger upkeep, if a person invites another player from a different guild to gain their guild's ship buffs should it come at a renown cost from the player benefitting?

No issue with that either. less people would ask for a ship invite.

I like the idea - but the server load would be just a Senior Prom for lagmonsters... to make lots more lagmonsters...

Here is why: instead of having to iterate through just the guilds to assign decay - the server would have to iterate through all the guilds, and then through all the characters in the guild.... adding millions of iop's to the process..... in layman terms --- instead of counting parking lots and doing one equation, you have to count parking lots and then each car in that lot.... then do multiple equations - on top of having to track additional things --- so more memory and processes and storage - and more interactions that could and would spawn lag and quite probably unforeseeable undesirable interactions (aka bugs).

And if a guild was to be able to 'charge' for the use of its amenities..... wait - guilds and players already are - just not renown. Guilds (and their members) should benefit from the amenities/ship through their intrinsic worth - rather than their perceived benefit to others.

[Tshober]

Under the temporary system and the existing underlying system (e.g. to use the battle box before The Consortium arranges for your backpack to be pilfered by kobolds in revenge for booting them from Delera's)- those that log in just to check mail or other non-renown generating activities are being penalized much worse than the proposed system.

Here is why: you log in a character and are considered active for a month after. Under the proposed system you actually are considered active for a day. So if you don't play that character(account) that day - you don't affect renown. So rather than always affecting decay, you shift to sometimes affecting decay.
ll.

This statement is correct for the old decay system but it is completely incorrect about the current decay system. Under the current decay system there is no decay penalty at all for players who log in and do not gain any renown. That is because the number of active accounts in the decay formula is fixed and never changes. Ever. Only under the old decay system and under your proposed decay system are these players penalized for logging in. Again, this is one of many reasons why the current system is superior to both the old system and to your proposed system. No one is penalized with more decay for logging in currently.

Edit: Changed to clarify that I was referring to decay penalty only and not to the loss of small guild bonuses.