Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

guilds are what they are - different players want different things. Doesn't make one more right or correct than another.

That has to be in the heart of the system.

And if a guild wants to be a social guild... then it can be.

However, if a guild with hundreds of players in it wants buffs and amenities and levels and its leader doesn't - that speaks of a not good situation.

I suggest the leader take his own advice and leave the guild and all the rat race behind and become a zen hermit.

I'm going to bed, this is now just becoming insults towards me, solely because I pointed out the transparent system of easy buttons this guy wants for small guilds.

[Tshober]

It's more than that he's trying to drive casual players away from the game, possibly to nwo which seems to be set up to be more casual friendly.

Virtually every MMO out there is more casual friendly. None that I have played have a guild system that decays on a regular basis like DDO has. They have learned, as DDO is now learning, that taking away players' progress when they are offline is bad for business because it alienates casual and social players. Some MMO's have even implemented systems where players can continue to progress even while they are offline, to help even out the playing field a bit more between the casual/social players and the power gamers.

[Lowz]

I'm going to bed, this is now just becoming insults towards me, solely because I pointed out the transparent system of easy buttons this guy wants for small guilds.

I am sorry if you took offense to that - didn't mention you at all - but in any case - have sweet dreams! and dream of 67500

[Lowz]

Virtually every MMO out there is more casual friendly. None that I have played have a guild system that decays on a regular basis like DDO has. They have learned, as DDO is now learning, that taking away players' progress when they are offline is bad for business because it alienates casual and social players. Some MMO's have even implemented systems where players can continue to progress even while they are offline, to help even out the playing field a bit more between the casual/social players and the power gamers.

LOTRO - kinships can wither.

[Tshober]

guilds are what they are - different players want different things. Doesn't make one more right or correct than another.

That has to be in the heart of the system.

And if a guild wants to be a social guild... then it can be.

However, if a guild with hundreds of players in it wants buffs and amenities and levels and its leader doesn't - that speaks of a not good situation.

I suggest the leader take his own advice and leave the guild and all the rat race behind and become a zen hermit.

Yes, different players want different things from their guild. But EVERY guild wants to level up. There are no guilds that don't want to level up. Just as there are no players that want to remain level 4 forever. Some are more serious about how fast they want to level up than others are, but they all want to level up eventually.

[Tshober]

LOTRO - kinships can wither.

Well, I guess you can make the same mistake twice. Does their withering involve daily loss of status that has to be overcome each day and gets bigger with each member they add? In other words, does it work like DDO's old system did? if so, I imagine they are having similar problems.

[Lowz]

Yes, different players want different things from their guild. But EVERY guild wants to level up. There are no guilds that don't want to level up. Just as there are no players that want to remain level 4 forever. Some are more serious about how fast they want to level up than others are, but they all want to level up eventually.

I tend to agree - but the system cannot favor one type over another.

Yes, if a guild works hard and is active it should level faster than a guild that is less active or has fewer members.

Decay sucks rotten eggs, but I don't believe the devs will remove it - so how do we fix the current broken system and remove the favoritism that is there.

so if the favoritism is about guild size (currently massively favoring large and huge guilds) and it was previously about favoring the medium, small and tiny guilds - how do you factor out that size favoritism.

You factor it out like any good math problem and include it in the equation - by making the equation include both the level of the guild and the number of members that earned renown in that day - now makes it level no matter what size; and still makes it more difficult the higher level you get (which the devs have built into the system and is currently in the system - just look at the multiplier).

There is no favoritism in that, and allows guilds to have as many or few members as they wish - of any kind of player - without penalty.

The guilds that have more members, and are more active will level much faster than guilds with fewer members and less activity.

Like the guy said - not perfect, but a good solid start.

Mass boot penalties sound like a good idea have to see what is presented.

[Charononus]

I tend to agree - but the system cannot favor one type over another.

Yes, if a guild works hard and is active it should level faster than a guild that is less active or has fewer members.

Decay sucks rotten eggs, but I don't believe the devs will remove it - so how do we fix the current broken system and remove the favoritism that is there.

so if the favoritism is about guild size (currently massively favoring large and huge guilds) and it was previously about favoring the medium, small and tiny guilds - how do you factor out that size favoritism.

You factor it out like any good math problem and include it in the equation - by making the equation include both the level of the guild and the number of members that earned renown in that day - now makes it level no matter what size; and still makes it more difficult the higher level you get (which the devs have built into the system and is currently in the system - just look at the multiplier).

There is no favoritism in that, and allows guilds to have as many or few members as they wish - of any kind of player - without penalty.

The guilds that have more members, and are more active will level much faster than guilds with fewer members and less activity.

Like the guy said - not perfect, but a good solid start.

Mass boot penalties sound like a good idea have to see what is presented.

It's not just math though it's also a social financial problem.

[Lowz]

Well, I guess you can make the same mistake twice. Does their withering involve daily loss of status that has to be overcome each day and gets bigger with each member they add? In other words, does it work like DDO's old system did? if so, I imagine they are having similar problems.

I dunno the specifics since that member of the guild has gone back to LOTRO - but I will send him an email and ask. I do know they have a much more complete guild system though, and it might be that DDO borrowed the core from LOTRO and only took some of it.

I do know that turbine is making earning renown easier - with more renown pots dropping in random loot, free ones through cannith challenges, and now through the daily dice.

I can't say that what he says is going to be the best - but so far it is better than whatelse I have read -= eliminates favoritism.

And I know - that favoritism could also be considered with guild size bonus - but I don't think it affects much at all - unlike needing mass numbers to overcome level 100 decay - 67500.

[Charononus]

I dunno the specifics since that member of the guild has gone back to LOTRO - but I will send him an email and ask. I do know they have a much more complete guild system though, and it might be that DDO borrowed the core from LOTRO and only took some of it.

I do know that turbine is making earning renown easier - with more renown pots dropping in random loot, free ones through cannith challenges, and now through the daily dice.

I can't say that what he says is going to be the best - but so far it is better than whatelse I have read -= eliminates favoritism.

And I know - that favoritism could also be considered with guild size bonus - but I don't think it affects much at all - unlike needing mass numbers to overcome level 100 decay - 67500.

That number is level 90 decay for a large guild with Uwhatever's system.... Per person.

[Lowz]

It's not just math though it's also a social financial problem.

Yes. but the basis of all social financial problems is still math. Now add psychology and sociology into it.

Math says equal without favor.

Psychology will say group together for maximum benefit.

Socialogy will say that be in a group that you enjoy playing with - and that you feel comfortable with.

There is little that can be done to remove the psych and soc from the guild system, and there is no reason to do so either.

However, the math of the system needs to be without favor and cannot promote one guild size over another.

[Tshober]

Decay sucks rotten eggs, but I don't believe the devs will remove it - so how do we fix the current broken system and remove the favoritism that is there.

I don't understand where this assumption comes from. The devs have not ever stated such a limitation. And they have already greatly reduced decay. Every guild with more than 10 players in it has already gotten a reduction in decay. I don't see why further decay reduction is so impossible. And extending decay reduction to the smallest guild that have not yet got any decay relief makes good sense and will help exactly those guilds that are still struggling with decay. I am willing to start throwing out other ideas as soon as the devs state clearly that further decay reduction is off the table. But until then, I say extend the decay reduction to the smallest guilds to give them relief. Or better yet, eliminate decay entirely.

[Lowz]

That number is level 90 decay for a large guild with Uwhatever's system.... Per person.

67500 is the decay assigned to a level 100 guild currently.

This is a number so big that it makes it impossible for a medium or small guild to get to and stay there.

This is a number so small that a large guild laughs at it.

Under the new system - well - read those posts. Sounds like a better deal for most guilds.

[Lowz]

I don't understand where this assumption comes from. The devs have not ever stated such a limitation. And they have already greatly reduced decay. Every guild with more than 10 players in it has already gotten a reduction in decay. I don't see why further decay reduction is so impossible. And extending decay reduction to the smallest guild that have not yet got any decay relief makes good sense and will help exactly those guilds that are still struggling with decay. I am willing to start throwing out other ideas as soon as the devs state clearly that further decay reduction is off the table. But until then, I say extend the decay reduction to the smallest guilds to give them relief. Or better yet, eliminate decay entirely.

Yes to removal of all decay.

But if that doesn't happen - just extending the existing relief does not remove the favor slant toward large guilds, does not fix the exisintg broken system.

[Nestroy]

Yes to removal of all decay.

But if that doesn't happen - just extending the existing relief does not remove the favor slant toward large guilds, does not fix the exisintg broken system.

It already would help most guilds (except very small ones) if the current decay formula was set to 5 or 10 instead of the 20 accounts minimum. Could be an MIN(Active Accounts;20) formula and fine.

[Tshober]

However, the math of the system needs to be without favor and cannot promote one guild size over another.

In a decay system, you can only have 2 possible outcomes. Either the system favors inclusion or it favors exclusion. It is not possible for it to be exactly balanced and neither favor inclusion nor favor exclusion, because as soon as it becomes impossible for players to earn negative net renown (after the decay for that player is subtracted), you are now favoring inclusion. And as long as it is possible for players to earn negative net renown, you are favoring exclusion. All players with negative net renown will be undesirable (from a strictly renown point of view) in all guilds, because they will reduce the amount of renown that the guild earns every day. That leads to a system that rewards guilds for shunning/kicking players that earn negative net renown. That is what the old system did and that is exactly why it was rejected.

Uwhatshisname's proposal favors exclusion like the old system did. The only difference is it will have fewer undesirable players. But there will still be some and the incentives will be just as strong to shun/kick them as it was in the old system. Adding players can hurt your guild with more decay so recruiting new players is dangerous and kicking the lowest earners is rewarded.

The current system favors inclusion, if you only look at decay. That is because players can't cost more in decay than they earn. That means that adding more members can never hurt your guild with more decay and kicking the lowest earners costs you renown versus just keeping them.

The point of all this is, you have to favor something. If the system is exclusive, like the old system and Uwhatshisname's proposal, you are favoring smaller guilds. If the system is inclusive you are favoring larger guilds. It is literally not possible to balance the two exactly because as soon as the lowest net renown earner goes from negative to zero, you jump to favoring inclusion and large guilds. But as long as it remains negative, you are favoring exclusion and small guilds.

So the question is which is better for the game? Inclusion or exclusion? I think it's pretty obvious. A system that rewards shunning/kicking a part of the player-base and discourages inviting new players, just does not make for a healthy gaming environment. On the other hand, a system that rewards players for joining forces with the other players on their server to work together toward a common goal (leveling up) is pretty much what an MMO should be about. But that's just my opinion.

[Forzah]

So the question is which is better for the game? Inclusion or exclusion? I think it's pretty obvious. A system that rewards shunning/kicking a part of the player-base and discourages inviting new players, just does not make for a healthy gaming environment. On the other hand, a system that rewards players for joining forces with the other players on their server to work together toward a common goal (leveling up) is pretty much what an MMO should be about. But that's just my opinion.

Of course inclusion is better! The goal of an MMO is to play and have fun together. When you create an incentive for people not to invite friends to a guild because of renown loss, you are obviously working in the opposite direction of your goal.

[slarden]

The proposed system will actually promote all types of guild play, and make it so inviting someone is less of a risk.

Sadly to say there are those who purposefully go around joining guilds just to entertain themselves, or to raid the guilds coffers or just create havoc.

I want a system that doesn't promote any one style - rather just promotes the guild system in general for all styles of guilds and styles of play.

My idea is the closest thing yet - and only fixes the favoritism already present in the existing system that was carried over from the last system.

It isn't popular with some because they don't take the time to think about and study the proposal.

There will always be those that exploit the system - but thankfully those are in the minority (I hope) - all we can do is try to make the system as fair and unbiased as possible and trust in people being kind and respectful.

Regardless of the merits of your proposal it will never be implemented. I would just get behind an idea like this:

It would seem something as simple as this:

Decay size based on active members/3 (round down)-min:2/max:10

keeping everything else as is, would give those smaller guilds relief from decay without disadvantaging casual players.

Though I do like the idea that an account actually has to earn renown every day to be counted as being active.

Which helps gulds with less than 30 members without taking away the benefits that large guilds recently received. I have several friends in a large guild on Sarlona that was stuck @ around 60 for a long time until this change in October. Now they are 81 and proud of their accomplishment. I think any proposals should not increase the decay of any other guild from what it is now. I see no reason to see this guild move backwards.

Just keep in mind that if you get behind this proposal a few people will argue against it because their goal isn't to help form a good system, but to ensure the system continues to benefit only one guild size. Just ignore them because responding doesn't help anyhow.

All guilds should be able to advance. My guild is benefitting (slightly but still it helped) from the recent renown boost the devs added (possibly unintentionally and some only temporary), however, this won't help all guilds. I run with many people from small casual (and or family) guilds. The system is not working for them due to high decay. With all the talk about the problem with the old system was that it was calculated on the # of accounts, the real issue was actually [B]high decay]/B]. The system never encouraged anyone to shun or boot casuals. in fact guilds could have bene happy to stall at 60/70/80 but they wanted to advance just like tiny guilds do now. The problem was that large guilds couldn't advance due to high decay so they tried to work-around the system by minimizing players that didn't produce much net renown.

I like the above proposal with no other changes as he stated. Others have suggested removing small guild bonus. I see removing small guild bonus as a huge negative because it makes it hard for start-up guilds to advance. All guilds start with exactly 1 player and grow at different rates and speeds from there. As others have pointed out, it isn't easy for start-up guilds to recruit because they have less to offer than more established high level guilds. It's very common for people to join a start-up guild and then leave it for a higher level guild. The game shouldn't discourage new players and guilds. Removing small guild bonus would do exactly this and accomplish nothing.

It's simple, only benefits and doesn't harm, and only the true haters would be against such an idea.

[Hendrik]

Check out my stats, over 9 million renown generated by me. You asked, I showed. The guild I belong to just achieved level 55 - and it was a part time player who got the last renown to put us over that milestone. We are now enjoying a nice big sebaceous new ship.

And as the recent posts go to show - there is significant support for an unbiased solution to the currently broken system, my proposal is the single-most unbiased solution presented so far that it fixes the bias inherent to the system.

*sigh* calm down before you post something you will regret. Keep the conversation civil please.

Like total falsehoods easily verified by the public?

IF you have generated over 9mil renown yourself, that equals GL of 57 (9,259,650) where your statement of just earning GL of 55 (8,318,750) does not match your claims of what you have personally earned.

Care to explain this discrepancy?

[UurlockYgmeov]

Like total falsehoods easily verified by the public?

IF you have generated over 9mil renown yourself, that equals GL of 57 (9,259,650) where your statement of just earning GL of 55 (8,318,750) does not match your claims of what you have personally earned.

Care to explain this discrepancy?

Yep - decay, accidentally leaving guild (oops) and the guild's normal ebb and flow of comings and going.