Guild Renown Changes

[UurlockYgmeov]

SO here is the revised proposal - prioritized easiest to implement first to the most difficult last.

Eliminate Decay Altogether.

but if Turbine says no, then:

1. Revert to pre-change except for following significant changes that take away 99% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play. Booting will still occur - but not because of the system.
   
   1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to two days (changed to two to account for weekend);
   2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
   3. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
   4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels. and lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
      
      1. New formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum 1) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).(corrected - forgot decimal) - this change alone reduces decay for most guilds by up to 93%)
      2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
   5. Ransack set to start at 500K per day or at 2nd level - whichever is easier to implement. Ransack doesn't start to kick in until (500K) or (2nd level) is reached.
   6. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
2. VIP's should get +10% renown - this is now in line with what Fernando stated about new benefits starting with +10% xp for VIPs that begin next patch(s.i.c. below).
3. 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.
4. there needs to be a new form of Global Friends List - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild. Once a player is on your Global Friends List - you can see any of their characters from any of their characters (can still flag yourself as "invisible" or "do not disturb" to make a character not show up in global list). This lets us do global ignore as well, for those who would use it. Selecting (or hovering over with tool tip) a Global Friend in your list and it shows you the last (visible) character they logged in as, the server, and how long ago they logged off, if they aren't online. thanks to Artos_Fabril for the improvements!

add 10% boost to all earned XP for VIP accounts.

seen this firsthand (on Lammania) and in the Lamannia release notes.

[Artos_Fabril]

[b]

• member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.

Why all the qualifiers? Cut this down to: member is not counted toward modified guild size until she/he generates renown in any form.

• there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.

Let's take this a half-step further and make it a Global friends' list. You send invite, other person accepts, now you can see them on any character (can flag yourself as "invisible" or "do not disturb" to make a character not show up in global list). This lets us do global ignore as well, for those who would use it.

Selecting (or hovering over?) a Global Friend in your list and it shows you the last (visible) character they logged in as, the server, and how long ago they logged off, if they aren't online.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Why all the qualifiers? Cut this down to: member is not counted toward modified guild size until she/he generates renown in any form.

Because if they use the guild's resources they should be counted toward decay. Not popular, but is fair.

Let's take this a half-step further and make it a Global friends' list. You send invite, other person accepts, now you can see them on any character (can flag yourself as "invisible" or "do not disturb" to make a character not show up in global list). This lets us do global ignore as well, for those who would use it.

Selecting (or hovering over?) a Global Friend in your list and it shows you the last (visible) character they logged in as, the server, and how long ago they logged off, if they aren't online.

Agree - just would be polite to give option of one or all characters. Some have characters they don't want to be disturbed on. But then they could just be on the normal friends list.

[Artos_Fabril]

Because if they use the guild's resources they should be counted toward decay. Not popular, but is fair.

A player who logs in once a week to chat, then logs off on the ship is counted for 4 days of decay? (2 because they were on this ship at least once this log in, 2 because no matter what they do at next log in, they will already be on the ship)

A player pops on to refill potion/scroll stocks at a guild vendor, then logs off and doesn't get to play for another 2 days, but still gets counted for decay?

A player who gets intermittent play time logs in and hops into a slayer area, but has to log out before earning a single point of renown, starting the 2 day timer?

How is any of these less "fair" (or easier to implement) than:

Players are flagged as "active" upon earning renown. The "active" flag is removed after the first decay period in which the player earned 0 renown.

Agree - just would be polite to give option of one or all characters. Some have characters they don't want to be disturbed on. But then they could just be on the normal friends list.

That's what the "invisible" and "do not disturb" options are for.

[UurlockYgmeov]

A player who logs in once a week to chat, then logs off on the ship is counted for 4 days of decay? (2 because they were on this ship at least once this log in, 2 because no matter what they do at next log in, they will already be on the ship)

A player pops on to refill potion/scroll stocks at a guild vendor, then logs off and doesn't get to play for another 2 days, but still gets counted for decay?

A player who gets intermittent play time logs in and hops into a slayer area, but has to log out before earning a single point of renown, starting the 2 day timer?

How is any of these less "fair" (or easier to implement) than:

Players are flagged as "active" upon earning renown. The "active" flag is removed after the first decay period in which the player earned 0 renown.


That's what the "invisible" and "do not disturb" options are for.

Give you points on both - the first because of the ship - and only the ship.

Second - agree - the systems should co-exist. - the DND and INV are universal, which kinda defeats the idea of more capabilities. But whatever the devs can do I'd be happy with.

[Gremmlynn]

Because if they use the guild's resources they should be counted toward decay. Not popular, but is fair.

Needlessly complex just to be able to split hairs IMO. Simple is generally best.

Agree - just would be polite to give option of one or all characters. Some have characters they don't want to be disturbed on. But then they could just be on the normal friends list.

What does this have to do with guilds. Unless you mean the whole guild renown/level sideshow should usurp the main purposes of guilds and some friends list work around should be developed to a real poor job of replacing guilds for that purpose. Kind of like turning your car into a play house for your kids and motorizing a skateboard to replace the function of the car.

I already have a friends list, but that doesn't tell me if my friend's fiend's friend is online playing a character of my level, the guild list does.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Needlessly complex just to be able to split hairs IMO. Simple is generally best.

concerning logging in and when to count toward modified guild size

I like simple and simple is often best; but simple doesn't quite fit the bill. Need some grey areas, and just because someone doesn't earn renown doesn't mean they shouldn't affect decay. At the same point, just because someone logs into their character doesn't mean they should affect decay either. Need to find the middle ground.

What does this have to do with guilds. Unless you mean the whole guild renown/level sideshow should usurp the main purposes of guilds and some friends list work around should be developed to a real poor job of replacing guilds for that purpose. Kind of like turning your car into a play house for your kids and motorizing a skateboard to replace the function of the car.

I already have a friends list, but that doesn't tell me if my friend's fiend's friend is online playing a character of my level, the guild list does.

The improvement or addition of a better friends list system is a separate but valid idea that ties into guilds.

The person who suggested it stated (and I am paraphrasing here) that there are just some people who want to be social - and we need a better friends list that allows for that - one that allows entire accounts to be friend'd and so on. This would allow for enhanced social play and general play in all; personally wish the officers could see membership by account - but don't see that happening anytime soon.

In any case - was not the highest priority to the proposed plan, just something that would improve the quality of life and in game experience for most.

[Gremmlynn]

concerning logging in and when to count toward modified guild size

I like simple and simple is often best; but simple doesn't quite fit the bill. Need some grey areas, and just because someone doesn't earn renown doesn't mean they shouldn't affect decay. At the same point, just because someone logs into their character doesn't mean they should affect decay either. Need to find the middle ground.

Why? Personally, I like the current system where one never has to worry about whether logging in or not will effect your guild negatively. Or more realistically, guild leaders or core members who actually understand the system don't have to worry whether members logging in will do so. Because most of the members of my guild don't even seem to be aware that decay even exists and those that do mostly think it still operates by whatever misinformed manner they thought the old system operated under.

Simple is good as it makes it much easier to explain to members and much more likely they will understand the explanation. That, in my opinion, is much more important than splinting hairs over who took advantage of their guilded status that day (though, I for the life of me can't figure out how grabbing ship buffs or buying guild consumables and not using them for anything that earns renown will break the system).

That said, I really don't see the devs moving away from the current system as it doesn't discourage anyone from not logging in or encourage any guild leaders etc. to boot anyone due to their frequency of play. In other words, it doesn't get in the way of the game itself. I just don't see them moving back to anything that contributes to defining who the good guildies and bad guildies are.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Simple is good as it makes it much easier to explain to members and much more likely they will understand the explanation.
...
That said, I really don't see the devs moving away from the current system as it doesn't discourage anyone from not logging in or encourage any guild leaders etc. to boot anyone due to their frequency of play. In other words, it doesn't get in the way of the game itself. I just don't see them moving back to anything that contributes to defining who the good guildies and bad guildies are.

simple is good as long as it is fair and this temporary system, as was the prior system is far from being fair. This temporary system heavily favors large guilds which are the minority (less than 10% of all guilds are large, and that is less than 10% of all players - so that means the current system is unfair to 90% of all guilds and 90% of all players (ok - 90% of players who participate in the guild system))

The proposal is simple and fair, and even just its core would be most easy to explain and implement; heck it is already explained in about one paragraph.

Guild leaders will always boot whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. In the end this temporary system is extremely unfair to the vast majority of guilds and players. Time to fix it and the proposal is a viable solution that is fair to all players, of all play styles, all guilds of all sizes, levels and purposes.

As far as who or what defines what as you say are 'good' and 'bad' guildies - it isn't the game, its the players - ie the guild leadership. The first step in preventing 'bad' guildies (or unwanted) is clearly communicating expectations - which the proposed addition of a guild probationary invite system assists with.

The second step is to remove the excuse most guilds used to boot players (and still do I might add) - activity level and its affect on renown decay. Ok, so the mega guilds don't use that excuse any more - now the excuse seems to be we're full, so we need space for x so you have to go. Now it is the small guilds (which are a majority of guilds). The proposal does remove this pretense by changing the window from 30 days to 2 days concerning when an account affects the modified guild size.

Some of the proposal is beyond the scope of guild renown decay - and that is fine - those items came about from lively rhetoric and conversations in this thread; you will also notice that those items are further down the priority list in the proposal. You should have also noticed that the first suggestion in the proposal was to eliminate decay altogether.

The devs have said and have been quoted as to have said (just read back a couple of pages) that the system is temporary and that they are looking to find a permanent solution. With that said, devs have let slip in Lammania that changes are coming probably this year to the guild system. Now that might be hearsay but it does stand to reason.

So there has been no better proposal for a simple, fair to all, guild renown decay system than the one that is currently on the table.

I hope to hear more suggestions and hope we can work to incorporate those suggestions into the proposal.

[Gremmlynn]

simple is good as long as it is fair and this temporary system, as was the prior system is far from being fair. This temporary system heavily favors large guilds which are the minority (less than 10% of all guilds are large, and that is less than 10% of all players - so that means the current system is unfair to 90% of all guilds and 90% of all players (ok - 90% of players who participate in the guild system))

The proposal is simple and fair, and even just its core would be most easy to explain and implement; heck it is already explained in about one paragraph.

Guild leaders will always boot whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. In the end this temporary system is extremely unfair to the vast majority of guilds and players. Time to fix it and the proposal is a viable solution that is fair to all players, of all play styles, all guilds of all sizes, levels and purposes.

As far as who or what defines what as you say are 'good' and 'bad' guildies - it isn't the game, its the players - ie the guild leadership. The first step in preventing 'bad' guildies (or unwanted) is clearly communicating expectations - which the proposed addition of a guild probationary invite system assists with.

The second step is to remove the excuse most guilds used to boot players (and still do I might add) - activity level and its affect on renown decay. Ok, so the mega guilds don't use that excuse any more - now the excuse seems to be we're full, so we need space for x so you have to go. Now it is the small guilds (which are a majority of guilds). The proposal does remove this pretense by changing the window from 30 days to 2 days concerning when an account affects the modified guild size.

Some of the proposal is beyond the scope of guild renown decay - and that is fine - those items came about from lively rhetoric and conversations in this thread; you will also notice that those items are further down the priority list in the proposal. You should have also noticed that the first suggestion in the proposal was to eliminate decay altogether.

The devs have said and have been quoted as to have said (just read back a couple of pages) that the system is temporary and that they are looking to find a permanent solution. With that said, devs have let slip in Lammania that changes are coming probably this year to the guild system. Now that might be hearsay but it does stand to reason.

So there has been no better proposal for a simple, fair to all, guild renown decay system than the one that is currently on the table.

I hope to hear more suggestions and hope we can work to incorporate those suggestions into the proposal.

Well, first off, I could care less if the system is fair to all guilds as long as it is fair and as unobtrusive as possible to all players. Guilds serve a lot better purpose to the game with their social/grouping aspect than they do by giving a few minor buffs, though those buffs do give them an incentive to serve the first purpose to the most players currently.

Second, it doesn't remove activity restrictions, it just makes activity per session restrictions. Exasperated by these silly convoluted rules for what counts as an official decay producing log-in and what doesn't.

Really if only the 10% of players you claim are in those large guilds, then it seems the system, as is, can't be to bad or there wouldn't be such a majority choosing to be disadvantages by it. Personally, I think it's just a few who choose to look at the whole system as some kind of competition that think something has to be done to take away the advantage those large guilds have.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Well, first off, I could care less if the system is fair to all guilds as long as it is fair and as unobtrusive as possible to all players. Guilds serve a lot better purpose to the game with their social/grouping aspect than they do by giving a few minor buffs, though those buffs do give them an incentive to serve the first purpose to the most players currently.

Second, it doesn't remove activity restrictions, it just makes activity per session restrictions. Exasperated by these silly convoluted rules for what counts as an official decay producing log-in and what doesn't.

Really if only the 10% of players you claim are in those large guilds, then it seems the system, as is, can't be to bad or there wouldn't be such a majority choosing to be disadvantages by it. Personally, I think it's just a few who choose to look at the whole system as some kind of competition that think something has to be done to take away the advantage those large guilds have.

That is where you are only seeing the tree not the forest. Different Guilds have different purposes. Some are purposefully intent on competition; some are not. Different Guilds for different folks. Its allot like PvP - some players choose to do it, some only want to do it, some think it is a waste of time. That is what has keep this game alive - the diversity of the game in what it offers. Guilds need to have the ability to be as diverse, so being fair to all guilds is very important.

The temporary system is better in some ways and worse in others. It alleviated some pressure to boot - but only for the large guilds.

I personally agree about the competition, as I also don't usually participate in PvP - however it is part of the game and in fact part of human nature - to be competitive. To eliminate it just makes having separate guilds moot. As in all things DDO, participation is not mandatory; so you don't have to even care about 'beating' other guilds in whatever way.

Guilds do help in grouping/social - but that is neither their sole or primary function. Guilds are groups of people with common goals/interests assisting each other in common goals/interests. Now does that have to be social? No.

DDO is a personal choice in play styles. It can be like Golf, Zen Gardening, a Social activity, formula one, or a gigantic space race between countries. In fact it doesn't have to be just one exclusively. Guilds can be and should be the same. Discounting and or trivializing that fact is a mistake.

As far as the majority of the guilds choosing to remain small? Many reasons not limited to : not wanting to loose intimate nature of a small guild; time required to recruit and maintain; and many other reasons too numerous to itemize.

Just because it is a few that benefit doesn't mean that it is fair and should be left alone. Saying that it is just a few and because they think it is a competition doesn't change the fact that the temporary system is unfair and hurts the quality of play of the majority.

[Tshober]

That is where you are only seeing the tree not the forest. Different Guilds have different purposes. Some are purposefully intent on competition; some are not. Different Guilds for different folks. Its allot like PvP - some players choose to do it, some only want to do it, some think it is a waste of time. That is what has keep this game alive - the diversity of the game in what it offers. Guilds need to have the ability to be as diverse, so being fair to all guilds is very important.

I agree it is like PVP but the difference is PVP is purely voluntary. You can choose to not participate in PVP and still level up. Guilds cannot choose not to participate in this "competition" unless they are willing to give up on leveling up. If we had real guild competitions for those guilds that want to compete and made them voluntary and most importantly not tied to leveling, then I would be perfectly fine with such competitions. But the old decay system and your proposed new system set up a mandatory competition that all guilds are forced to participate in in order to level up. That is a poor design choice that leads directly to the incentive to kick less active players. The current system allows guilds to opt out of this silly competition if they wish to (by inviting and retaining casual/social players) , with minimal penalty to their ability to level up eventually.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I agree it is like PVP but the difference is PVP is purely voluntary. You can choose to not participate in PVP and still level up. Guilds cannot choose not to participate in this "competition" unless they are willing to give up on leveling up. If we had real guild competitions for those guilds that want to compete and made them voluntary and most importantly not tied to leveling, then I would be perfectly fine with such competitions. But the old decay system and your proposed new system set up a mandatory competition that all guilds are forced to participate in in order to level up. That is a poor design choice that leads directly to the incentive to kick less active players. The current system allows guilds to opt out of this silly competition if they wish to (by inviting and retaining casual/social players) , with minimal penalty to their ability to level up eventually.

There is no mandatory competition. Guild competition is completely voluntary in two ways: first don't participate in a guild at all, or be in a totally social guild that doesn't care about levels or other things. You always have the choice.

There is no mandatory competition. If you want better things you must work for them. If that is a competition, it is solely against yourself unless you wish to make it about more.

I agree - there should be more alternative ways to allow guilds to compete with other guilds, and even within the guild itself (if it and its members so wish).

Leveling up a character is not tied to PvP in any way; PvP is about one character against another. In fact PvP is counterproductive to leveling a character because you use resources and achieve nothing toward leveling a character.

Leveling a character is mostly about improving itself through struggles and losses for a perceived tangible gain in both physical (loot) and intangible (favor, xp, access to more) benefits. If you want to level, then you have to gain experience.

Both PvP and leveling a character are completely optional and in no way mandatory.

A character ne can remain a level 1 completely without harm or competition and still enjoy the full benefits of the social aspects of DDO; and if that level 1 character so wishes, they can even participate in a guild that is level 1 and has no wish nor desire to go any further. Both the guild and its members still get the benefits of the guild chat, the recognition of being in a guild, the use of the guild compendium, and the guild roster. All without any competition at all.

Any perceived competition is solely voluntary and not compulsory.

While that is entirely within the scope of the game and the realms of possibility - it is highly unlikely.

What you wish for is no renown decay - and that is already in the proposal as the first option. I fully support this; however lovely a concept, having no renown decay is severely lacking a solid foundation in possible future reality.

If a guild wishes to level therefor, it will face decay. How that decay is computed and applied is what the proposal primarily encompasses. The proposal is fair to all players of all play styles of all guilds of all levels, sizes, and styles. The proposal is based upon the fact that all guilds can achieve level 100, but not all will; for most guilds there will be a time when they achieve a state of stasis caused by many possible factors. This level of stasis is inherent to the fundamental design of the guild renown system, and makes achieving guild level 100 harder than 99, 99 harder than 80 and 80 harder than level 60. In order to achieve something of meaning, the meaning of which is defined by the difficulty of achieving said achievement

One of the core fact of the proposal is that the proposal actually makes it easier for the almost all guilds to achieve higher levels - levels higher than before the temporary change.

If you call leveling a guild mandatory competition - then you might need to change your prospective.

And finally - as has been stated numerous times to your claims that the temporary system has eliminated the impetus to boot players due to activity levels; you are sadly mistaken, because all this temporary change did was change who was feeling the pressure to boot due to activity levels from the minority (large guilds) to the majority (small guilds)

In the end - how you perceive competition in the game is entirely up to you; and you can participate or not. However, the proposed system allows for a fair playing field if you choose to compete in any way, or even if you don't.

[Charononus]

SO here is the revised proposal - prioritized easiest to implement first to the most difficult last.

Eliminate Decay Altogether.

but if Turbine says no, then:

1. Revert to pre-change except for following significant changes that take away 99% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play. Booting will still occur - but not because of the system.
   
   1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to two days (changed to two to account for weekend);
   2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
   3. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
   4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels. and lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
      
      1. New formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum 1) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).(corrected - forgot decimal) - this change alone reduces decay for most guilds by up to 93%)
      2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
   5. Ransack set to start at 500K per day or at 2nd level - whichever is easier to implement. Ransack doesn't start to kick in until (500K) or (2nd level) is reached.
   6. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
2. VIP's should get +10% renown - this is now in line with what Fernando stated about new benefits starting with +10% xp for VIPs that begin next patch(s.i.c. below).
3. 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.
4. there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.

seen this firsthand (on Lammania) and in the Lamannia release notes.

You don't get it, going back to the old system, even with your revisions is horrible it will result in going back to the old system of guilds booting casuals after all a 1% decrease from a casual is 1% only by making casuals have a 0% penalty do you get away from that which is what the changes that turbine implemented did and they have resulted in a positive change for the casuals that wanted to be a part of larger guilds.

[Tictman]

Question why are you trying to make the system so complicated?

[UurlockYgmeov]

changes that turbine implemented did and they have resulted in a positive change for the casuals that wanted to be a part of larger guilds.

Incorrect. The temporary system is just robbing peter to pay paul. Now instead of the large guilds (which make up the minority of guilds and also consist of the minority of players) feeling the pressure to boot due to activity levels, now it is the small and medium guilds (which make up the overwhelming majority of guilds and players) that are feeling the pressure to boot. The casual players (and all others) that desire small to medium guild experience are now the ones being adversely affected by the temporary changes. The proposal is a fair correction for all players of all play styles of all guilds of all levels and membership levels and play styles.

with your revisions is horrible it will result in going back to the old system of guilds booting casuals

Incorrect. The Proposed system all but eliminates all impetus to boot players due to activity levels for all guilds, of all levels, of all play styles.

You don't get it, going back to the old system, even with your revisions is horrible

Incorrect. The changes include changes that follow the spirit and concept of guild renown decay while eliminating perceived penalties for inclusive guild behavior. In fact the proposed system rewards guilds for inclusive guild behavior.

In the end - you cannot make the system (even by eliminating decay altogether (which is part of the proposal)) boot proof. Guild will boot and they should have the right to boot, and they can and will always say for many reasons, including but not limited by 'activity,' hence the optional addition of a probationary guild invite.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Question why are you trying to make the system so complicated?

It is not complicated, rather it is as simple as can be reasonably expected. What it was prior to the temporary change was complicated.

In fact, the system is less complicated than the temporary change, it just looks more complicated than it is because it spells out changes/modifications to what is already in place; while it also simplifies the math.

[eris2323]

Not interested in any proposal that involves bringing back the horribly broken old system, even with these extremely complicated changes.

For the record... if any devs are still watching this crazy long thread, LOVE the current system, please don't change it!

[UurlockYgmeov]

if any devs are still watching this crazy long thread

they are.

Not interested in any proposal that involves bringing back the horribly broken old system, even with these extremely complicated changes.

The current system is both temporary and the same system as the old with one (1) change to the math.

All the proposal does in its core is do the same - change the existing system to make it unbroken. The concept of the guild renown decay system is sound, just ill implemented.

"Complicated it is not, simple it is." — Yoda

we are sorry if any kobold's were harmed in any way during the creating/editing of this post - they (one in particular who was responsible for in-line spellchecking tried to turn Yoda first into Yogurt and then into Yoga... needless to say Yoda wasn't very pleased.

[eris2323]

they are.


The current system is both temporary and the same system as the old with one (1) change to the math.

All the proposal does in its core is do the same - change the existing system to make it unbroken. The concept of the guild renown decay system is sound, just ill implemented.

"Complicated it is not, simple it is." — Yoda

we are sorry if any kobold's were harmed in any way during the creating/editing of this post - they (one in particular who was responsible for in-line spellchecking tried to turn Yoda first into Yogurt and then into Yoga... needless to say Yoda wasn't very pleased.

Everyone wants to be king, no one wants to be the Knights... I get it, I just do not agree with your proposed changes whatsoever, and don't think any proposal that goes back to penalizing by number of players has any place in the game.