Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

Just goes to show that the only one actually looking at the math and the system as a whole are your supporters.

Um, I'm pretty sure I spotted the error and pointed out that your claim that decay increased under the current system was simply wrong. And it was wrong.

Oh well. Whatever. No need to thank me.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Then how do you explain that the devs said there would be no increase for any guilds? I don't think you understand the math.

Um, I'm pretty sure I spotted the error and pointed out that your claim that decay increased under the current system was simply wrong. And it was wrong.

Oh well. Whatever. No need to thank me.

you pointed out an error without being specific

I won't - the professional polite thing would have been to say - ok - that's incorrect and here's how instead of just saying 'you're wrong - you don't understand the math.' which accomplishes nothing.

Thanks Lowz! appreciate the time it took for you to double check.

[Charononus]

The problem with the old system was that it based Renown earnings on a per Account basis but never truly defined what the Expected Daily Renown Earnings per person really was. Since this could be a huge fluctuation between different types from the hardcore daily gamers to the few hours a week types. This just was not defined well at all. And because of that it hurt Guilds that had a larger percentage of few hour a week types vs. hardcore.

The Current system removed the Per Player calculation and standardized it at the 20 Account Level. So yes, smaller than 20 Account guilds would have seen a bump in the Decay, but would not have seen a change in renown earning bonus. This did not level the playing field - It put the potential advantage in larger guilds due to them having more people to "Cover" the decay.

Any system based on the individual Accounts of a guild cannot be fair when each individual has a different earnings potential, as this would once again push back to the problems of the "Old" system which was less a Large Guild vs Small Guild (even though many wanted to make it out as such) and more Casual vs Not So Casual Guilds.

Now the 20 Account Guilds have it the hardest as they don't qualify for Bonuses and their Renown Decay stayed the same. The bonus to renown for the smaller guilds was meant to have them be competitive with larger guilds, but instead gave them an advantage in the old decay mechanic. The new mechanic was intended to make them equal to the 20 Account Guild - based on some response here it seems that it missed that mark.

It is disappointing that we have not heard anything about the next "Phase", but I do not want a renown system that puts Casual vs Non-Casual players. I also don't want a small vs large. So far I have not seen one proposal added by the player base that fits either of those.

I thought it was always 10+10 for modified size as the min.

[Tshober]

I won't - the professional polite thing would have been to say - ok - that's incorrect and here's how instead of just saying 'you're wrong - you don't understand the math.' which accomplishes nothing.

Actually, I think it does accomplish something. It points out who actually understood how the current system works and who did not. It also points out who has actually read and understood what the devs have said about the decay system and who has not.

[Lowz]

WIth your rudeness and attitude towards forum members, I don't believe you, and would like that verified. And since you've now added a post to start name-calling, I've reported your post.

Good day to you.

What - you can't verify anything on your own?

I don't believe you have reported anyone because by now you would have been banned yourself. Empty threats.

I haven't been rude to anyone and have been very open minded and helpful.

I haven't called anyone specific a name, and have been very careful not to even purposefully mispell anyones name like it seems to be a habit here.

I cannot help it if someone takes offence because the shoe fits. Any offense is purefully unintentional.

So Uurlock - about that modifier being set to 2.5 - how about instead of the existing
Level Multiplier
Level 26-40 2.5
Level 41-60 3.0
Level 61-80 3.5
Level 81-99 4.0
Level 100 4.5

go with 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 3.0, 3.5??? how would that figure into the math?

[eris2323]

What - you can't verify anything on your own?

I don't believe you have reported anyone because by now you would have been banned yourself. Empty threats.

I haven't been rude to anyone and have been very open minded and helpful.

I haven't called anyone specific a name, and have been very careful not to even purposefully mispell anyones name like it seems to be a habit here.

I cannot help it if someone takes offence because the shoe fits. Any offense is purefully unintentional.

So Uurlock - about that modifier being set to 2.5 - how about instead of the existing
Level Multiplier
Level 26-40 2.5
Level 41-60 3.0
Level 61-80 3.5
Level 81-99 4.0
Level 100 4.5

go with 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 3.0, 3.5??? how would that figure into the math?

Can't verify on my own until tomorrow, I don't have the data.

That's assuming I'm around at the proper time tomorrow to grab the new numbers.


Also, you've never called me names? Why would you lie like that?

"Doesn't matter how much she screams and yells, and how much she tries to bury your idea, your ideas have supporters because we want the game to be without slant and fair to all. She's just a troll and flamer who seems to be angry against the world and wants a silver spoon in her mouth."

"She's just a troll and a flamer"

She's stands for 'she is'

Right there is where you called me names, you liar.

So of course I'm not going to trust any numbers from you, you're a liar!

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...postcount=3361

[Lowz]

you pointed out an error without being specific

I won't - the professional polite thing would have been to say - ok - that's incorrect and here's how instead of just saying 'you're wrong - you don't understand the math.' which accomplishes nothing.

Thanks Lowz! appreciate the time it took for you to double check.

welcome.

[Lowz]

Also, you've never called me names? Why would you lie like that?

"Doesn't matter how much she screams and yells, and how much she tries to bury your idea, your ideas have supporters because we want the game to be without slant and fair to all. She's just a troll and flamer who seems to be angry against the world and wants a silver spoon in her mouth."

"She's just a troll and a flamer"

She's stands for 'she is'

Right there is where you called me names, you liar.

So of course I'm not going to trust any numbers from you, you're a liar!

Nope - you are not the person I was talking about - and you name - eris2323 is not mentioned anywhere in that post.

You owe me an apology for calling me names.

making a single error in math is not lying.

not admitting you were wrong or trying to hide the facts or putting things out of context (purposefully) makes you a liar.

I am sure the mistake was not intentonal.

so with the standard definition of lie - [i]An intentionally false statement.[/a] what uurlock did was a mistake - which he owned up to and even thanked me for explaining.

[Charononus]

Nope - you are not the person I was talking about - and you name - eris2323 is not mentioned anywhere in that post.

You owe me an apology for calling me names.

If that's the case you may want to reword it, I read it the same way and immediately reported it.

[eris2323]

Nope - you are not the person I was talking about - and you name - eris2323 is not mentioned anywhere in that post.

You owe me an apology for calling me names.

making a single error in math is not lying.

not admitting you were wrong or trying to hide the facts or putting things out of context (purposefully) makes you a liar.

I am sure the mistake was not intentonal.

so with the standard definition of lie - [i]An intentionally false statement.[/a] what uurlock did was a mistake - which he owned up to and even thanked me for explaining.

I don't care about your excuses. the paragraph in the middle calls me a troll and a flamer, and you are a liar.

[Lowz]

If that's the case you may want to reword it, I read it the same way and immediately reported it.

she / it / he are generic terms - and can mean anyone or no one in specific.

Same as saying 'It is dumb'

[eris2323]

she / it / he are generic terms - and can mean anyone or no one in specific.

Same as saying 'It is dumb'

Guess we'll have to see how many others report it then.

I certainly did, it was insulting and obvious.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Actually, I think it does accomplish something. It points out who actually understood how the current system works and who did not. It also points out who has actually read and understood what the devs have said about the decay system and who has not.

no - just proves I am human and was in a hurry while tired.

The rest is sound - has been double and triple checked - and then checked again after Lowz helped me with my single mistake of forgetting a 10.

as expected - the flaming has begun. mature adults in a constructive conversation would merely go - you human, you made a mistake - just double check the rest and lets move on.

I double checked the rest, and all the math is still solid.

[UurlockYgmeov]

she / it / he are generic terms - and can mean anyone or no one in specific.

Same as saying 'It is dumb'

Nope - you are not the person I was talking about - and you name - eris2323 is not mentioned anywhere in that post.

You owe me an apology for calling me names.

making a single error in math is not lying.

not admitting you were wrong or trying to hide the facts or putting things out of context (purposefully) makes you a liar.

I am sure the mistake was not intentonal.

so with the standard definition of lie - [i]An intentionally false statement.[/a] what uurlock did was a mistake - which he owned up to and even thanked me for explaining.

thank you and strongly suggest you squelch eris2323 because it is causing you to loose focus on the topic.

crunching the numbers you asked for.

[eris2323]

Uh yeah... so is anyone who isn't a blatant tool of this transparent conspiracy around to actually verify any real numbers?

The decay is actually based on 10 accounts, not 20, currently, right?

Maybe since they've squelched me, I'll finally get a real answer.

Our guild hasn't been near the 'minimum levels' in a looooong time, so I really don't know. Is the system based on 10 character multiplier, or 20?

Please... some numbers.... from observation... or something... or a dev?

[Lowz]

So what are the numbers looking like uurlock?

[UurlockYgmeov]

So what are the numbers looking like uurlock?

well - different - but still not something that I like - it just puts more decay on the larger and higher level the guild goes. not at all fair. sorry - fail.

[Charononus]

Uh yeah... so is anyone who isn't a blatant tool of this transparent conspiracy around to actually verify any real numbers?

The decay is actually based on 10 accounts, not 20, currently, right?

Maybe since they've squelched me, I'll finally get a real answer.

Our guild hasn't been near the 'minimum levels' in a looooong time, so I really don't know. Is the system based on 10 character multiplier, or 20?

Please... some numbers.... from observation... or something... or a dev?

From my understanding and I may be wrong the system is and has always been modifiedguildsize=(10+numberofaccounts) with numberofaccounts now being set at 10 since last oct.

[eris2323]

From my understanding and I may be wrong the system is and has always been modifiedguildsize=(10+numberofaccounts) with numberofaccounts now being set at 10 since last oct.

Okay so bear with me here...

on this page, his chart seems to claim there was a doubling of renown decay over the old system.

if there has been no change, how is that possible?

Link to his chart:
http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...postcount=3348

So to be clear... it's 20 * whatever, and always has been? I mean; there was always a minimum value of 10 for that other field anyways, right?

You can understand my confusion I hope...

[Charononus]

Okay so bear with me here...

on this page, his chart seems to claim there was a doubling of renown decay over the old system.

if there has been no change, how is that possible?

Link to his chart:
http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...postcount=3348

So to be clear... it's 20 * whatever, and always has been?

You can understand my confusion I hope...

To my knowledge it's always at min been 20*whatever, his chart from the knowledge I have is ..... well best just call it full of mistakes. Now I could be wrong but that's my understanding of it, I didn't start paying much attention to the renown numbers till the change because I knew that by being in a large guild we'd get hammered and plateau so I never payed attention to the specifics.