Guild Renown Changes

[GrimGus]

i would love to see some thoughts from the turbine/dev camp. in this "official tubine discussions" thread.
this thread with nearly 3000 replies taking 149 pages.
it would seem this is a topic of great interest to many players. it would be great to read some input from the officials.

i said before i'm in favor of being rid of decay altogether. now more so then ever after taking repeated hits from resets.

[Tshober]

i would love to see some thoughts from the turbine/dev camp. in this "official tubine discussions" thread.
this thread with nearly 3000 replies taking 149 pages.
it would seem this is a topic of great interest to many players. it would be great to read some input from the officials.

i said before i'm in favor of being rid of decay altogether. now more so then ever after taking repeated hits from resets.

I think we all would like to know where the devs are headed with this.

We have been under the new decay system for more than 4 months now. My own guild was stuck at level 61 before the change, but we have been steadily leveling since the change, so I am very happy with that. My hope is that we can extend the decay relief to the tiny guilds that did not get any decay relief from the initial change.

[UurlockYgmeov]

You make no sense here sir eliminating guild levels would make renown worthless not eliminating decay.

that was the point - if you eliminate decay (which won't happen according to dev's (lost was about a month ago - I just quoted)) you might as well eliminate renown and therefore guild levels - so you create a guild - you get essentially all the benefits of level 100 guild.


argumentum ad infinitum; argumentum ad nauseum

[UurlockYgmeov]

appreciate the positive post with constructive input on the topic.

Oh I agree to a certain extent. However, it does not make sense for Turbine to change the system back to making individual players a burden after eliminating the per/player decay mechanic.

As I recently reposted from dev: need a system that is fair to all guilds, of all sizes, levels, and play styles. However, you can't please all the people all the time, just most of the people some of the time. Please let me explain.

The current modified system is already a per player mechanic (PPM) for all guilds, it is just that with more players the impact is felt less, and not fair to all guilds, all sizes, all levels, all play styles. (AGASALAPS <- or AGSLPS??? ok - doesn't work )

The question I pose then is are we trying to adjust decay to be fair to the guilds or the players?

Also - is it fair for those players that do earn renown and for those that don't?

I think the goal should be to fairly assign decay to all guilds, of all levels and sizes and play styles - while minimizing (cannot eliminate all together) impact on casual players.

I am working on the models in order to show the different proposals and their effects of all guilds of all sizes, levels and styles of play.

If a player chooses to join a guild with no intention of using the ship and amenities but merely to keep in touch with friends they should not be penalized. I guess booting is like being metaphorically being stabbed with a red-hot poker, but comparing casual players to leeches or mosquito’s?

Isn't that what the friends list is for?

Penalized no - included in the decay, well they all ready are.

I have stated I lacked the glibness for debate several times, and will restate it again.

Casual players are the backbone - the majority of players (by numbers if not also by time played). I could have been clearer - but there are some undesirable players out there - who just join a guild to cause mayhem, to steal / leach / beg / etc. That is one of the reasons behind adding a probationary guild invite (yes I have already thought about a dozen ways which a probationary system could be abused; but the benefits greatly outweigh the negative caused by a few). Fortunately those players also don't contribute (overwhelmingly) to renown gain, just are a drain - so booting them should usually have an immediate, and long-term benefit to all (even those not in the guild).

The guild system just ins't robust enough to differentiate between styles of players... it just isn't robust enough in many ways, period. However, this thread isn't about that, start that thread and I'll jump in with both feet from deck 13.... (hopefully not ended up with my ankles around my head )

I think the line of reasoning that a player should join a like-minded guild and know what they’re getting into is unfair. Small guilds that choose not to recruit with the knowledge that larger guilds have it easier, players in small guilds can either choose to remain in a non-recruiting status of the guild or leave for a larger guild… system shouldn’t have to cater to everyone?

Caveat Emptor - does one join a bowling league to play poker? Does one join a poker club to bowl? Does one join a tuesday social club to not be social on tuesday? One should always try to find the guild that is the greatest fit.

For me it is a guild that has several real-life, life-long friends. Now I am (think this is obvious) an active player... my friends are not - example of three: ones an accountant with a family and plays only every week or so and is a beta account. Another is an husband, father and attorney. He plays 3-4 times a week and just started to play 6 months ago. The third is a active duty military and his wife - who just was deployed for another year TOD in the sandbox - so no internet. Previously a daily player with many many TR's.

I choose to stay with the guild - even though I get would get better perceived value by joining a larger guild.

I agree - the system shouldn't have to cater to everyone; just making a wise or at least informed choice will go along way in eliminating allot of the friction (Hence the suggestion to add probationary invites).

I used to play a lot, I always (short of a choice of unbound stat tome) select the renown option as an end reward, keeping at least one character in-guild allows for them to retain all the renown I’ve gained instead of 75% of it. My storage AH toons don’t use any amenities or shrines. By your reasoning since I am not benefiting from being in the guild I should not affect decay.

Couple of points. I hope you continue to play for many years to come - at your choice of activity levels.

I do the same - choose the reward that gives the maximum gain - and different people have different priorities - which is fine. I choose stat tomes for sale or to give away or to grind for purified ebberon dragonshard fragments (cannith crafting). If it is a legendary victory - well, only a couple things (say a Quiver of Alacrity ) beats that out. Often when running with a good PUG I'll choose the renown end reward just to help keep us running fast since I don't have to stop and find space in my backpack. I commend those that choose renown, and I also tell my guild mates to choose the best reward with the greatest impact - and so that is often a major mnemonic potion over a heroic deeds (unless running a guild pot and guild renown boost :P)

75% Nah - that is incorrect.

How to leave a guild without the guild loosing much if any renown? Can be done. Takes a step or two - but here it is:
Last toon in the guild should be one that has earned the least amount of renown, and or is deletable. If not - can create a placeholder and swap them in.
Empty the toon and bank - then delete the toon from the character select screen If a character is deleted from the Character Select screen while a member of a guild, no renown is lost. [urlhttp://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_renown#Guild_renown_loss_from_leaving_charac ters]Guild renown loss from leaving characters[/url] which is something I've done or helped others to do countless times.

If it is a character you wish to keep, then maybe swap in a temp toon and follow the above instructions. Obviously you need a spare character slot in order to do this - but for most it should work.

Again - all characters in a guild do already receive the benefits of being in a guild - whether or not the character chooses to uses them is another thread altogether. What benefits? Even just to enjoy the prestige (even unconsciously) of having the guild and its level listed with the character. Guild chat is another. Vendors, another. So yes, all members should be considered when determining decay, especially since they are already included in determining the size bonus.

My account will always be active, that being said, only the character that I’m gaining renown on should be (the only one) affected by decay should it change from guild level back to guild size.

added for clarity - hope you don't mind and hopefully got it right

I wish the guild system was much more robust than it is, as it is the guild system seems like a 100 story high beautiful skyscraper that is only 2 stories high.... with that said - the only way I can see to minimize the affect is to have a twenty-four hour window. I've considered allot, including giving a certain amount of renown for logging in every 24 hours (without size bonuses) - just enough to cancel the effect, but this would be complicated, and very much abused and defeat the philosophy, psychology and root intention of decay.

I’ve also had an active (monthly not yearly) subscription since the inception of the game. Perhaps VIP’s should be gaining renown passively to nullify per account decay

+1 excellent idea and I like this and /sign my name (and every VIP ever) up on the petition. Kindly start the thread.

Actually a great idea - just wouldn't be all that much renown - 100 or 250 renown per account per day. I would say per guild but that would (not might) lead to abuse.

Where are you getting the 95%? I can accept that a high number of guilds are small but by no means does that mean server population reflects that percentage especially if the bar is set at 20+ accounts.

Sadly one of the things that silently affect and effects this thread and this topic is the overwhelming lack of statistics. Hence the passion since there is a blackhole of experimental and empirical data. I will gladly sign a NDA and NC and many other legal documents if given some access to the data to finish my models. Yes, YourDDO does an excellent job of presenting statistics; but sadly that data is solely dependent on my.ddo.com, so the data is grossly out of date, incomplete at best, and inaccurate at the worst.

I base my number on mostly yourddo - and from personal experience. If the total number of active accounts (180 days) where known (which will never be - since closely held trade secret), and the total number of active guilds (account login withing 180 days) known (again - trade secret) we could do the math.

Also - from my guild leaders recent personal experience with renaming our guild, there are a many thousands of guilds just sitting there in 'limbo.'

Since we don't know we have to look at the total guilds we can use yourddo:

Total Number of Guilds with an Active Leader: 12,494
Number of Argonnessen Guilds: 1,103 (% of total: 8.83%)
Number of Cannith Guilds: 1,008 (% of total: 8.07%)
Number of Ghallanda Guilds: 2,237 (% of total: 17.90%)
Number of Khyber Guilds: 2,355 (% of total: 18.85%)
Number of Orien Guilds: 970 (% of total: 7.76%)
Number of Sarlona Guilds: 1,890 (% of total: 15.13%)
Number of Thelanis Guilds: 2,236 (% of total: 17.90%)
Number of Wayfinder Guilds: 695 (% of total: 5.56%)

Average Members per Guild on Khyber: 28.35
Total Officers on Khyber: 41,766 (51.88% of all guilded characters)
Total Members on Khyber: 36,821 (45.74% of all guilded characters)

Top 30 Guilds by Size(characters)
Guild Name Level Size
1 Mature Adventures Club 79 963
2 Lords of Khyber 69 876
3 Disciples Of Apocalypse 79 721
4 Power Source 58 713
5 Cavalieri dei Draghi 76 626
6 Stormreach thieves' guild 67 598
7 Knights of Winterfell 71 564
8 Loreseekers 81 563
9 Seekers of Justice 74 528
10 Dragon Renaissance Brotherhood 80 519
11 Majestics 78 488
12 Crusaders of Heaven 61 481
13 Crimson Eagles 85 472
14 The Core HC Permadeath Guild 63 472
15 Apocalyptic Knights 82 471
16 Guildless Guild 85 453
17 Acta Sanctorum 70 447
18 Jester's Court 77 434
19 Skylords 62 424
20 uber troopers 76 416
21 The Dragon Order of Arcanix 79 411
22 Homeboys Of Stormreach 81 409
23 The Darkness 55 393
24 Knights of Chaos-Reidra 94 392
25 The One 84 379
26 Cult of Ryliegh 70 370
27 Sages of Silverymoon 53 369
28 Lava Divers 91 365
29 Prophets of the New Republic 100 363
30 Guardians of the Game 64 340

.

and extract or reverse engineer the math.

95% might not be the perfect number, and I should have written it ~95%; but close enough for sake of argument once you consider the totals are characters not accounts Might not be spot on, but good enough for government work.

The current temporary system is not a per/character burden system for any guilds. Even for smaller guilds. Removing a player in a tiny guild may raise the size bonus but it has absolutely no effect on decay. Replacing a player with a more active player is a form of recruitment, and that’s what I find inherently wrong with bonuses and decay that can be raised or lowered based on the removal of a player.

Actually, that statement is false. It is a per account system already - just that the more accounts the guild has, the less perceivable it is, hence how unfair it is; and how much the system favors the guilds with the most members. Essentially decay means more the fewer active accounts you have.

I would prefer a sliding scale… you benefit when you’re small and it may be a disincentive to grow. However, bonuses and decay reductions due to size changes can only be gained when the player decides to leave and not when the guild decides to boot.

I hope you understand that the time I take to respond is a measure of respect.

I encourage you to expand on this further even if just to help my understanding of your thoughts and intentions.

If I understand correctly - I agree in part. Sliding scale - agree. encourage guilds to level until a point where it should become harder and harder to achieve the next level. Working on it.

There should be less of a penalty for leaving a guild on amicable terms (but 10% isn't so bad, and if a player wants to leave with zero (0) loss of renown it can easily be done). Remove the penalty to modified guild size (or greatly reduce it) for leaving on amicable terms.???

There should be enough of a cost to a guild in order make booting a serious consequence, both to the guild and the player. Increase the length of time or increase the penalty from 25% to 50% (but decrease the time needed to wait for these penalties to be reduced for inactive accounts (from 180 days to 120 days))???

Base access to plat cost amenities based on total TP spent by guild members? I mean if they're giving something away for free, they have to keep the revenue stream up somehow. XP shrines will only be purchased at the DDO store? Is that what's to come of all of this?

That was to point out the Argumentum ad nauseam et argumentum ad infinitum about eliminating decay all together (no decay makes renown moot; so no renown - eliminate guild levels all together - so all guild have access to all amenities for plat). I personally do advocate this nonsense.

[UurlockYgmeov]

i would love to see some thoughts from the turbine/dev camp. in this "official tubine discussions" thread.
this thread with nearly 3000 replies taking 149 pages.
it would seem this is a topic of great interest to many players. it would be great to read some input from the officials.

A dev posted this about a month ago:

We're all for new ideas and brainstorming solutions (truly, really, not just tossing buzzwords). This particular idea is problematic, because it promotes kicking players from your guild to reduce decay, which is where we were before and a situation we want to avoid.

We are certainly still considering other changes and have never said that the current changes being tested were considered any kind of final solution. We'd love to have more ideas to consider.

Ideas that are more likely to work out are ones that feel fair, promote playing together with people you like and have fun with, and where the system itself isn't promoting who you play with. We don't want to promote any particular guild size. And we don't want incentives for kicking players you enjoy playing with, or for players who might like to come and hang out or play occasionally to feel like they are hurting their guild or harming their friends in any way. If these goals seem wrong, we're willing to hear ideas on that too. This isn't an exhaustive list, but current thinking is leaning us strongly towards including these goals.

Now off the record, a turbine employee who should know did let it slip that guild changes are coming soon. I can't say who, where but this was this year.

i said before i'm in favor of being rid of decay altogether. now more so then ever after taking repeated hits from resets.

As much as I personally would love the elimination of decay - it is here to stay, hence the whole thread about Argumentum ad nauseam et argumentum ad infinitum

[Tshober]

that was the point - if you eliminate decay (which won't happen according to dev's (lost was about a month ago - I just quoted)) you might as well eliminate renown and therefore guild levels - so you create a guild - you get essentially all the benefits of level 100 guild.
[/i]

You keep saying that the devs have stated that decay will not be eliminated. I have asked you to provide a quote from a dev that says anything of that kind and you have been unable to do so. Until I see a reasonably recent quote from a dev that supports your statement, I will continue to maintain that you are just making it up.

[UurlockYgmeov]

You keep saying that the devs have stated that decay will not be eliminated. I have asked you to provide a quote from a dev that says anything of that kind and you have been unable to do so. Until I see a reasonably recent quote from a dev that supports your statement, I will continue to maintain that you are just making it up.

actually - find me a quote that says they are going to, or even willing to eliminate it (said specifically)

I don't need to substaniate the statement since common sense says they are keeping it. Read EVERY dev / Turbine post to date concerning renown and decay.

You are entitled to keep your head in the sand like a beholder facing a halfling palemaster

I will do what you asked.... and have now reposted this no less than 3-4 times. (Sorry folks - redundant I know - but as the Army says - tell them what you are about to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them, and for good measure make them run 50)

A dev posted this about a month ago:

This particular idea is problematic, because it promotes kicking players from your guild to reduce decay, which is where we were before and a situation we want to avoid.

... have never said that the current changes being tested were considered any kind of final solution.

in effect - Vargouille is saying that even though elimination of decay is possible - it isn't on the table, else they would have already done it.

Argumentum ad nauseam et argumentum ad infinitum

[Chaos000]

No problem, I'm always up to discuss. If someone points out an inconsistency in my current line of thought, I'm more than willing to redress and re-evaluate my paradigm.

The current modified system is already a per player mechanic (PPM) for all guilds, it is just that with more players the impact is felt less, and not fair to all guilds, all sizes, all levels, all play styles. (AGASALAPS <- or AGSLPS??? ok - doesn't work )

I'll have to respectfully disagree.

The current modified system no longer took guild size into account by only taking a guild's level into consideration rather than its size.

I do feel that it may have been better served to help out tiny guilds by having decay scale from 1 and cap at 20, and not have decay ransack apply till 2nd level earned.

As to your question. Turbine wasn't trying to adjust decay to be fair. The intent was to address concerns of "kicking" members from the guild to offset daily renown decay rates. Meaning: even players that don't contribute to renown gain, are still worth retaining - so booting them should no longer have an immediate, and long-term benefit.

Isn't that what the friends list is for?

Once they improve the friends list to show last log in along with all their current characters and alts without having to type it in... then I will concede on that point. Currently the only way to track that information is by checking the guild roster. Even private channels are woefully inadequate.

I agree - the system shouldn't have to cater to everyone; just making a wise or at least informed choice will go along way in eliminating allot of the friction (Hence the suggestion to add probationary invites).

I just want to point out that the system currently isn't catering to everyone. Arguing that it shouldn't while suggesting changes to cater to someone else starts to become an issue.

I base my number on mostly yourddo - and from personal experience. If the total number of active accounts (180 days) where known (which will never be - since closely held trade secret), and the total number of active guilds (account login withing 180 days) known (again - trade secret) we could do the math.

There's a problem extrapolating conclusions from this data is that it does not distinguish guild size therefore there are too many variables. Characters in multiple guilds, accounts with lower than average alts, free to play and vip character limits, single character guilds.

Actually, that statement is false. It is a per account system already - just that the more accounts the guild has, the less perceivable it is, hence how unfair it is; and how much the system favors the guilds with the most members. Essentially decay means more the fewer active accounts you have.

Technically my statement was true. The system favors an account's activity far more than the actual number of accounts. Adding a 0 renown gaining account displaces 0 decay nor does decay mean less for each additional 0 renown gaining account. Booting a player should always result in more decay. The question is whether or not renown should mean less the more accounts you have.

I encourage you to expand on this further even if just to help my understanding of your thoughts and intentions.

When I expressed that it should be a sliding scale it was in reference to optimizing guild size. Adding a player should reduce the size bonus, booting said player should not affect the size bonus. Decay should also not be reduced when a player is booted.

[Dandonk]

So, now it has been another month since the last post by Vargouille, and it is now over four months since the original changes.

Vargouille, you said it is not fair to keep the rest of us waiting - and I (unsurprisingly) agree. What is the hold up? What is the plan? Where are we heading?

In this thread we have discussed, ad nauseam, lots of ideas, problems, and visions for the guild renown system. And we have heard nothing substantial back from Turbine's end at all - just "wait, we may or may not fix it... at some point".

How long do we still have to wait? Is the solution to this issue on the way? Is the time frame measured in weeks, months, years or decades?

The issue from small guilds do not go away just because you ignore it. Please, find a solution - and do it soon. Not "soon" or "soon (TM)", but soon.

[Blue100000005]

So, now it has been another month since the last post by Vargouille, and it is now over four months since the original changes.

Vargouille, you said it is not fair to keep the rest of us waiting - and I (unsurprisingly) agree. What is the hold up? What is the plan? Where are we heading?

In this thread we have discussed, ad nauseum, lots of ideas, problems, and visions for the guild renown system. And we have heard nothing substantial back from Turbine's end at all - just "wait, we may or may not fix it... at some point".

How long do we still have to wait? Is the solution to this issue on the way? Is the time frame measured in weeks, months, years or decades?

The issue from small guilds do not go away just because you ignore it. Please, find a solution - and do it soon. Not "soon" or "soont (TM)", but soon.

+1, i stopped checking this save once a week cause there is far too much bickering about personal feelings about who has the biggest and best...............guild, and less about teamwork and making the game fun for all the players.

[Tshober]

actually - find me a quote that says they are going to, or even willing to eliminate it (said specifically)

I don't need to substaniate the statement since common sense says they are keeping it. Read EVERY dev / Turbine post to date concerning renown and decay.

You are entitled to keep your head in the sand like a beholder facing a halfling palemaster

I will do what you asked.... and have now reposted this no less than 3-4 times. (Sorry folks - redundant I know - but as the Army says - tell them what you are about to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them, and for good measure make them run 50)

A dev posted this about a month ago:



in effect - Vargouille is saying that even though elimination of decay is possible - it isn't on the table, else they would have already done it.

Argumentum ad nauseam et argumentum ad infinitum

Wow, you are doing some serious mind-reading there.

I never made a claim that the devs had decided either way. You seem to think they have ruled out the elimination of decay but you still can't point to any statement to prove it. Maybe they have made such a decision but they have not made any statement to that effect at all. Their actual statements on the matter say that everything that does not discriminate against certain players is on the table. And they have already reduced decay greatly. I see no reason to believe that even more decay reduction is not possible. And until the devs really do state that decay is here to stay, I will continue to urge them to get rid of it. And I will continue to point out that claims that the devs have ruled out further decay reduction are just unsubstantiated speculation. Because that's what such claims are.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Wow, you are doing some serious mind-reading there

*shrug* It isn't 'magic' when it is just science (deductive reasoning).

In order to placate you I will then include this:

1. Implement (aka ADD a)simple probationary (two-week) guild invite - invitee does not affect guild renown. So doesn't earn renown, and isn't counted toward modified guild size. Allows guild and prospect to try each other out and see if the fit is right.
   
2. Revert to pre-change except for two significant changes that take away 95% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play.
   
   1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to 24 hour window;
   2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one.
3. Ransack set to 500K per day instead of current temporary 3 levels and instead of the original 7 levels.
   
4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.... this allows for entropy to hit (level 1 to 100).
   
5. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
   
6. VIP's should get 250? renown a day per account - first character to log in receives - this renown is not subject to size or other boost modifiers.

OR

Eliminate Decay Altogether (jic King Kong and Godzilla come to town) .

there you go - pacifier inserted.

[UurlockYgmeov]

No problem, I'm always up to discuss. If someone points out an inconsistency in my current line of thought, I'm more than willing to redress and re-evaluate my paradigm.

excellent.

The current modified system no longer took guild size into account by only taking a guild's level into consideration rather than its size.

partially correct - one side of the equation was changed to no longer consider the guild size; the other is still unchanged - and that is still directly affected by guild size.

I do feel that it may have been better served to help out tiny guilds by having decay scale from 1 and cap at 20, and not have decay ransack apply till 2nd level earned.

I see the point about ransack affecting lower level guilds - and the system based upon levels is not fair or well thought out. Much rather see ransack capped at 500K earned a day.... something like 500K / 750K / 1M - or something like that - different levels of ransack.... but that (the different levels) might be too complex -- just might be simplier to cap renown earned at 500K a day.

This number was determined by taking 50M (amount of renown needed for lv100) and dividing it by 100. At low levels - really shouldn't affect guilds, at high levels - it is effectively a little more restrictive - but unless you have 1000 characters generating 5K renown a day - still won't affect them.

I like the scaling idea - but KIS - and this is KIS, less coding and far less chance of creepy crawlers finding their way in.

There is a way to make it scale - easily - just have the game add the guilds needed renown for current and next level and make that the ransack amount - but again - much more math and IOPs.

As to your question. Turbine wasn't trying to adjust decay to be fair. The intent was to address concerns of "kicking" members from the guild to offset daily renown decay rates. Meaning: even players that don't contribute to renown gain, are still worth retaining - so booting them should no longer have an immediate, and long-term benefit.

ie wasn't fair to casual players. Now according to dev posts (which I have reposted several times in the last couple days) they want to try and make the system fair to all sizes, levels, styles of play - within reason.

Once they improve the friends list to show last log in along with all their current characters and alts without having to type it in... then I will concede on that point. Currently the only way to track that information is by checking the guild roster. Even private channels are woefully inadequate.

I concede (as I pointed out in my post) that the guild system is very barebones and so is the social system. FB / google+ and guildportal.com are much better ways - along with teamspeak etc.

Technically my statement was true. The system favors an account's activity far more than the actual number of accounts. Adding a 0 renown gaining account displaces 0 decay nor does decay mean less for each additional 0 renown gaining account. Booting a player should always result in more decay. The question is whether or not renown should mean less the more accounts you have.

I think I understand your point - and don't think any changes to renown gain are warranted - guild size bonuses are fine the way they are; and (if I understand correctly) don't believe a guild size negative is in order. Scaling decay to size/level of guild (fairly) seems a more simple, more fair way to go.

When I expressed that it should be a sliding scale it was in reference to optimizing guild size. Adding a player should reduce the size bonus, booting said player should not affect the size bonus. Decay should also not be reduced when a player is booted.

Agree - booting a player (except for 180 days etc) should always be painful - so guild's will seriously consider before doing - and definitely before doing en masse (like was done on Khyber - I've seen and heard horror stories)

I really don't believe we are fundamentally different in our goals. Just need to find common ground.

[Tshober]

My reading comprehension is well over the PhD level. *shrug* It isn't 'magic' when it is just science (deductive reasoning).

Well, I must admit that you do seem to be able to read into the devs' statements a great deal more than mere mortals such as myself can disscern, however it is unclear as to whether that is due to your vastly superior intellect or due simply to wild fantasy.

1. implement (aka ADD a)simple probationary (two-week) guild invite - invitee does not affect guild renown. So doesn't earn renown, and isn't counted toward modified guild size. Allows guild and prospect to try each other out and see if the fit is right.

This accomplishes nothing helpful that I can see and, if made mandatory, it discriminates against new players.

2. Revert to pre-change except for two significant changes - instead of 30 days until inactive, change to 24 hours; and remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one. Takes 95% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play.

This is still the old decay system in a "light" version. It includes more decay and therefore more unfun renown farming just to fight decay. It also makes some players (though fewer than the old decay system) undesirable because of the amount of renown they earn. It includes a penalty (extra decay) for logging in when you do not have time to spend farming renown, such as to check the AH/mail or say hi to your DDO friends. The current system has none of these undesirable problems. This is a step back in the wrong direction.

3. Ransack set to 500K per day instead of current temporary 3 levels and instead of the original 7 levels.

The problem with the current renown ransack implementation, and with this proposal, is that they make it hard for small guilds at higher levels to overcome the ransack penalty on a day when they finally manage to level up. They can get stuck a "ransack loop" where they level up but can't overcome the daily decay + ransack penalty so they drop a level the next day, and then keep repeating the same level/drop scenario over and over. The way to remove this problem is to only implement the ransack penalty after the 2nd level is gained in a single day, but still make it so that at max 3 levels can be earned.

4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.... this allows for entropy to hit.

Here we go again with even more decay. Now the lowest level start-up guilds get to experience the pain too.




As long as you continue to repost your proposals, I will continue to point out the problems I see with them.

[UurlockYgmeov]

*sigh* for such a long post - you say almost nothing of value.

due to your vastly superior intellect

why thank you. appreciate you noticing the obvious. (<——Larry, Curly, Mo and Shemp???)

This accomplishes nothing helpful that I can see and, if made mandatory, it discriminates against new players.

this is concerning the adding (which means in addition to) optional (since added can be used or not used) probationary guild invite.

How does this not accomplish nothing? Allows players and guilds to try each other out without any risk to either. Promotes openness in guilds, and should help guilds feel more comfortable doing blind invites. Probationary guild members earn no renown, do not affect the modified guild size, and cannot use guild chests. Probationary invites are 2 week long, cannot be extended, or issued to the same character twice, and automatically convert to full membership at the end of the two week period (unless ended early by revoking or full invitation).

Now this is an optional system - since a normal invitation can be issued instead, hence the 'add' portion of the description.

*shrug* If you don't like it, then don't use it. Many guilds would love and use it.

This is still the old decay system in a "light" version. It includes more decay and therefore more unfun renown farming just to fight decay. It also still makes some players (though fewer than the old decay system) undesirable because of the amount of renown they earn. It includes a penalty (extra decay) for logging in when you do not have time to spend farming renown, such as to check the AH/mail or say hi to your DDO friends. The current system has none of these undesirable problems.

Again, you misquote and twist my words. Kindly stop.

There is no penalty ever for logging in. If there is, it is only in your short-sighted perspective.

The proposal should not require any renown farming to maintain nay even progress guild levels. The current system will be revised (as recently stated by a Dev and quoted multiple times) to be more fair to all guilds, of all levels, of all sizes, of all play styles.

A guild that doesn't earn any renown should atrophy and decay. Period.

Yes, you want no decay - and I've included that in the proposal.

You also see the glass half-empty; because this system, is a fair system to all guilds, and minimizes effects of casual players. If you and your guild choose to penalize someone for logging in daily, then it is you and your guild that is the issue. For every 1 member who does this, there are at least 50 that don't.

Decay should be easy to mitigate with minimal questing; heck slayer even generates renown! Every person I know generates easily +1K renown an hour (before any bonuses) without even trying.

off-topic: I've suggested elsewhere that on the character select screen an 'you've got mail' icon be put by a character with unread mail.

So it appears this is just about personal issues - kindly see beyond your branch and at least see the tree, if not the forest.

Kobold need glasses!

The problem with the current renown ransack implementation, and with this proposal, is that they make it hard for small guilds at higher levels to overcome the ransack penalty on a day when they finally manage to level up. They can get stuck a "ransack loop" where they level up but can't overcome the daily decay + ransack penalty so they drop a level the next day, and then keep repeating the same level/drop scenario over and over. The way to remove this problem is to only implement the ransack penalty after the 2nd level is gained in a single day, but still make it so that at max 3 levels can be earned.

your understanding of this non-issue is, well, off.

FYI: Proposal is to change from a level based ransack to a 500,000 per day ransack level.

It is nearly impossible for a small guild (like you say) to earn more than a level a day at higher guild levels. It takes 1.5(ish) million renown to go from level 99 to 100. Now simple basic math:
1,500,000 / 30 (members) = 50,000 renown per member (with 100%) activity. Even with a +50% elixir and a +30% renown boost it is nearly impossible to attain.

another example:
level 70 to 71 is 745,000 (ish) renown.
745,000 / 6 = 124,667 (ish) renown per member (with 100% activity). Even with a +300% small guild bonus, +50% elixir and a +30% renown boost it is nearly impossible to attain.

yet another (gratuitous) example:
1,500,000 / 300 (members) = 5,000 renown per member (with 100%) activity. Now this is doable without boosts and elixirs.

So the issue you present seems is with large and huge membership guilds feeling the effects of renown ransack as opposed to small or medium sized guilds.

disclaimer - there is one exception - BYGE - which may or may not every happen again, and if it does, the 500K should be significantly increased

As far as ransack loop - then that is as far as that guild in its current state (number of members, activity levels etc) can progress. All guilds can become level 100; but not all guilds will.

Ransack (aka a diminishing of returns) would not start to kick in at all until 500K renown earned in a single day. That is fair, simple and effective for all guilds, of all sizes, levels, and play-styles.

Here we go again with even more decay. Now the lowest level start-up guilds get to experience

yes, and yes.

What is fair for high level guilds is fair for all guilds.

A guild can never go below level 1; a guild can never loose its purchased ship; and at the lowest level (1) the decay would probably end up being about 1 a day (multiplied by modified guild size).

As long as you continue to repost your proposals, I will continue to point out the problems I see with them.

As long as you don't misquote or twist my words - please. I enjoy lively debate; just as long as it is constructive, positive and progresses the topic.

[Tshober]

Decay should be easy to mitigate with minimal questing; heck slayer even generates renown! Every person I know generates easily +1K renown an hour (before any bonuses) without even trying.

You say decay is so easy to mitigate that everyone you know can easily do so, and yet you also say that not all guilds should be able to achieve the highest levels. Those statements are incompatable. Which is it? If it's so ridiculously easy to mitigate decay in your plan, then why can't all guilds manage to do so? And, if it really is so incredibly easy to mitigate decay that all guilds can do so, then why even bother with decay?

When you have a system where decay increases for every player in a guild, then some players will lose more renown to decay than they earn, unless you take steps to make that impossible, which you did not do in your proposal. And as long as there are players that earn less renown than the decay they add, there will be incentive to shun those players purely for that reason. Your proposal could remedy this problem by ensuring that no player ever causes more decay than that same player earned in renown. To do so would require keeping track of the renown earned by each player (which DDO already does) and then capping the daily decay for that player at the amount of renown that player earned that day. That way no player could ever earn less than zero net renown after decay and no players would be undesirable based solely on net renown. But at that point, I have to question why you want to have decay at all. You can accomplish almost all of the same end results by simply eliminating decay and bringing guild leveling into line with how character leveling works in DDO, and with how guild leveling works in most other MMO's.

[Chaos000]

partially correct - one side of the equation was changed to no longer consider the guild size; the other is still unchanged - and that is still directly affected by guild size.

Perhaps the solution would be for the other it similarly not be affected by guild size.

There is a way to make it scale - easily - just have the game add the guilds needed renown for current and next level and make that the ransack amount - but again - much more math and IOPs.

No opposition here. Current renown ransack while achieving the intended effect of keeping huge guilds from overtly fast advancement also resulted in hitting some guilds with a prohibitive penalty that prevented any meaningful sustainable advancement despite the effort.

ie wasn't fair to casual players. Now according to dev posts (which I have reposted several times in the last couple days) they want to try and make the system fair to all sizes, levels, styles of play - within reason.

I see “within reason” to mean that the “fair” system will continue to make guild size optimization (the practice of “kicking” members from guild to offset daily renown decay rates) not have any benefit. Otherwise why make it fair for casual player just to pull the rug out from under them again?

Here’s my line of reasoning: old system assigned decay per player. Retaining each not really active player that did not contribute to renown gain meant that each member of the guild that did contribute to renown gain had “extra” decay on top of their own personal decay to deal with.

Any new system that proposes bringing back decay per player has to have a mechanism to eliminate the “extra.” Decay should not exceed the total renown gain of any player.

I concede (as I pointed out in my post) that the guild system is very barebones and so is the social system. FB / google+ and guildportal.com are much better ways - along with teamspeak etc.

Unfortunately those still do not track when a player last logged into the game or when they have switched to an alt.

[QUOTE]I think I understand your point - and don't think any changes to renown gain are warranted - guild size bonuses are fine the way they are; and (if I understand correctly) don't believe a guild size negative is in order. Scaling decay to size/level of guild (fairly) seems a more simple, more fair way to go. [QUOTE]

Scaling decay to size/level of guild IS making renown mean less the more accounts you have in guild. Same number of active players, unequal number of active accounts results in active players in guilds with a higher number of active accounts get more deducted out of their gained amount. If we bring in percentage of activity, players in guilds of higher numerical membership have their efforts count for a fraction of players of guilds of lower numerical membership.

I am aware that Justification for decay is that it is being assigned based on renown gain potential except there is no provisions in the system to factor unrealized potential.

Counting only players that have logged in the last 24 hours is still woefully inadequate because it’s not a true measurement of renown gained.

I really don't believe we are fundamentally different in our goals. Just need to find common ground.

I do like common ground.

[UurlockYgmeov]

out of all that - Kobold remembers the water works.

You say decay is so easy to mitigate that everyone you know can easily do so, and yet you also say that not all guilds should be able to achieve the highest levels.

...

And, if it really is so incredibly easy to mitigate decay that all guilds can do so, then why even bother with decay?

Most players can overcome decay easily until such a point where they hit the gain.loss equilibrium - which is intentional. However, with the proposed changes many more can easily continue without mostly only positive impact from casual players. So both are true.

is so incredibly easy to mitigate decay that all guilds can do so, then why even bother with decay

you kinda just shot yourself in the foot with your own words.

There is a point of equilibrium - where the size and activity level of a guild makes leveling more and more difficult. That is part of the system. The point is to make it so all guilds can make it to level 100, but not all guilds will.

Your 'no decay mantra' is now going to allow me to choose to ignore your posts. they are redundant, ridiculous, filled with errors in math, logic, reasoning, and common sense. I have included the 'eliminate decay altogether' in the proposal.

Guilds do not level like characters. First off, they are not separate entities with self determination - they are a consortium of individuals working toward a common goal, such as bigger ship, more amenities, social interaction, teaching, raiding, etc. Secondly they cannot TR like a character when they cap. So what is there to do once a guild hits 100 and there is no decay? It will entropy by its own weight usually because waning interest - nothing to achieve. So Turbine made a smart move to include decay.

Hero's exist because of Villains, Triumph because of Turbulence, Success because of Sacrifice. Each of these pairs form a symbiotic relationship - one gives meaning and weight, hence value / importance / significance to the other.

Now there are many other reasons behind decay - but personally I take the romantic view presented in the previous paragraph.

I challenge you to present concrete proof of your speculations. I also challenge you to see how boring a world would be without decay when achieving level 100 means nothing. Kinda like the grotto.... Hear that? Jeet's is calling your name! Kobold on union break!

[Tshober]

There is a point of equilibrium - where the size and activity level of a guild makes leveling more and more difficult. That is part of the system. The point is to make it so all guilds can make it to level 100, but not all guilds will.

You merely confirm that your goal is to punish guilds with a lot of casual/social players in them by making it impossible for them to advance without getting rid of those low renown earners. That was what we had with the old decay system. No thanks. The current system is better.

[UurlockYgmeov]

your goal is to punish guilds with a lot of casual/social players

Wrong. Incorrect *BZZZZZZZ* sorry no joy

actually - you are misinterpreting. with the 24 hour inactivity the proposed system has no downside to any guild, of any size, of any level of any play style.

So stop twisting my words.

The current system is better.

for only some of the guilds (the largest ones). Current temporary system is unfair to the majority of guilds and players because it favors the huge membership guilds - like the guild you are a member of.

'nough said - the poor dev's who are reading this thread (and they are) - they have enough constructive posts to read without having to read more trash and word spinning.