Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

Folks need to stop with the insults and personal attacks. Debate this subject civilly, please.

Thank you!

Can we get people to stop spamming too?

[Tshober]

Gremmlynns proposal goes like this;

Guild members divided by 3 = new account multiplier.

Min 2, Max 10.

So the renown will never go up for anyone - all guilds that are 27 or less accounts will get ANOTHER renown decay decrease, as their max 10 accounts is no longer valid.

Therefore, a solo guild would only have a multiplier of 2.

AND they'd get to keep their small guild bonus.

Does that sound fair? It sounds more than fair to me, the renown cost will be reduced by a LARGE margin for tiny, small, and solo guilds.

And it won't entirely destroy the system and put a price on casual players heads.

Yes, this is a good proposal. It is pretty similar to what I have been advocating but with an even greater decrease in decay for small guilds.

[Gremmlynn]

something that lives on the forums and sputters nonsense through many mouths. It seems to have driven all the hard working kobolds away from this thread!

Yes, there seems to be at least one of those in this thread. I'm guessing 3 mouths, but there could be some I missed.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Gremmlynns proposal goes like this;

Guild members divided by 3 = new account multiplier.

Min 2, Max 10.

So the renown will never go up for anyone - all guilds that are 27 or less accounts will get ANOTHER renown decay decrease, as their max 10 accounts is no longer valid.

Therefore, a solo guild would only have a multiplier of 2.

AND they'd get to keep their small guild bonus.

Does that sound fair? It sounds more than fair to me, the renown cost will be reduced by a LARGE margin for tiny, small, and solo guilds.

And it won't entirely destroy the system and put a price on casual players heads.

It doesn't fix the problem - where after level ~65 only large guilds can progress. And doesn't fix the 67500 decay at level 100 for every guild (except the tiny ones). This is as insane as it was prior to the temporary change - except now it is only large guilds that can make and maintain higher levels.

No this is not a fair unbiased solution - because it ignores most of the problems with the system. My system still has the best overall approach that is unbaised and allows all guilds to have who they want - and players to play with who they wish. Everyone that earns renown will affect renown - but only for 24 hours. The other ideas included offer suggestions that will help guild manage select and manage better; and players to choose better and feel like they aren't hurting their friends and guildies.

I was not the one who said lower activity guilds should not be able to reach level 100. That was the guy that keeps spamming his proposal. I was just using his own argument against him. I even quoted his statement that "not all guilds should be able to reach level 100".

I want ALL guilds to be able to advance and to be able to reach level 100 eventually, regardless of size and regardless of play-style. That is why I am advocating extending the decay relief to the smallest guilds that have not received any yet. And I have been advocating for total eliminating decay for over a year in these forums. No one that I am aware of has advocated longer or harder than me to reduce or eliminate decay so all guilds can level up.

My "hostility" is toward taking us back to a system that divides players into desirable and undesirable based on whether they earn more renown than they cost in decay. That is how the old decay system worked and how his proposed system would work. The current system does not do that and it can be easily extended to bring decay relief to the smaller guilds without going back in the direction of the old system.

That is not what I said. I kindly ask you to not twist, spin or misquote me. Please include full quote in context.

What I have said and will say again and make even more clear is that:

All guilds should (as in the system will allow them to) be able to reach level 100 given enough time; but not all guilds will (but not because the system prevents it).

I have clarified and repeated this so many times the keys are starting to break on my keyboard.

I fully support total elimination of decay - and because of it being a solution that solves the issues (but creates others) have included it as the first choice in the proposal. I believe that there should also be a spare kobold (backup plan) in case the Dev's decide not to remove it.

What you have proposed doesn't fix the broken system - only part of it. What you are suggesting doesn't fix the glass ceiling for most guilds after level 65,

Guilds are supposed to support one another, and when one has a bad renown day it might affect the guild as much as 250 decay for one day and that is at level 100; level 50 is only 125 decay. There is no way to tell who is earning renown and who isn't (short of enforcing daily screenshots - which is ludicrous - and I most players wouldn't want to be a part of that guild because of the negative culture). Plus as a guild - when one has a bad renown day, there will be others that pull a legendary victory. All balances out.

The system you are talking about (the reduce decay for the smallest guilds) is just making it a bell curve - only the smallest and largest guilds will be able to make it past ~level 65 and stay there.

So we can talk apples and apples - post the math and the hard examples.... say a 10 - 20 - 50 -100 - 1000 member guild at level 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100. break the decay down per day and then per day per member.

We can talk apples then.

I will come up with the same and post it later today. I will also tell you I will base mine on 50% of members logging in every day (which I think and from personal experience is conservatively high, and there for only 30% of the total membership affecting decay every day (which again is conservatively high vs experience)).

[UurlockYgmeov]

Yes, there seems to be at least one of those in this thread. I'm guessing 3 mouths, but there could be some I missed.

/squelched. you seem to have nothing positive to say nor constructive to add. I don't like having to squelch people but I refuse to get dragged any further into the mud.

Kobold sad.

[eris2323]

Squelch everyone who doesn't agree with you!

I posted math that shows you expect a level 100 solo guild to get by on 250 decay per day.

That is too little, when compared to the devastating effects your system would have and just because you use a lot of words, the majority of us are NEVER going to agree you system will work, as we do not want to go back to a system that counts players as a currency like that.

Very transparent. Your system is all about helping your tiny guild.

Either the devs can remove decay entirely, or go with another proposal, but your proposal is broken, and just because you squelch all the people who don't agree, doesn't make you right.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Small guild member have to pull 5 - 10 times more renown ( even with size bonus ) than some large guild member under new system for the same progress if you do some math, so please just be quiet about " not being active " already.

The change reduced decay for some guilds tenfold, so naturally small guilds will want to know if there is going to be any change. I don't remember similar hostility against casual guild concerns asking for change.

thank you! well said!

[UurlockYgmeov]

doing math

Guild members divided by 3 = new account multiplier.

Min 2, Max 10.

so is that =MIN(ROUNDUP(members/3,0),10)+10????

so divide members by 3, round up. min 2, max 10 then +10 (so from 12 to 20)

or is it divide members by 3, round up, min 2 max 10??? (so from 2 to 10)

or is it from 2 to 20?

currently am doing it the 12 to 20 method.

[Tshober]

Please include full quote in context.

I already have and your response was hilarious.

Your proposal takes us back to a system where players who earn less renown than they cost in decay will be unwelcome in any guild that wants to level up. That is why the old decay system was rejected. The current system does not have this problem and it is superior to your plan for that reason. The current system can be improved even more by extending the decay reduction to the smallest guilds that have not received any decay relief yet.

[UurlockYgmeov]

doing math

so is it from 12 to 20, or 2 to 10, or 2 to 20?

—paraphrased

have math done for all scenarios, just awaiting answer.

until then - upon request and also since edited and updated and added an additional idea (Thanks Skarlett of Khyber!)

Now the new system I propose is inherently unbiased - does not promote any style or size of guild. The only thing that will promote inclusion or exclusion in the new system is the guild leaders and the players.

Eliminate Decay Altogether

but if Turbine says no, then:

1. Modify temporary system by making simple and easy 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. Easy to accomplish because mostly only modifying existing code by changing static variables.
   
   1. member is not counted toward modified guild size until generates renown. (for mail checkers and purely social log ins)
   2. instead of 30 days until considered inactive for guild purposes, change to one day (changed to account for daily dice);
   3. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
   4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.
   5. Significantly lower decay for higher level guilds by up to 93% (the level multiplier drops from up to 4.5 down to 2.5).
      
      1. Modified formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum one) times guild_level times 2.5 (two point five)). This change alone reduces decay for high level guilds by up to 93%)
      2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
   6. 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.
2. Implement (aka ADD a)simple Provisional (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. changed term to provisional - Thanks Fearmaker!

The following is a short compilation of additional suggestions that will benefit guilds and has been generated in this discussion thread. These are not needed to implement the proposal, but are highly recommended as they address issues that affect the current topic and enhance the guild experience.

1. 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.
2. 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!
3. Guild Information Kiosk: There needs to be a better way for guilds to communicate information in-game about their guilds to the general public - including membership rules, play times and styles, recruitment status - and a way to ask for an invitation. Current methods are all out of game (compendium) and private web-sites (guildportal.com for example) both require programming knowledge (wiki style and web layout). Just have a guild information kiosk in the upper harbor and or in Korthos where players could talk to the NPC to find out more about guilds (general), guilds (specific guilds), search for a guild, message guild leader (inquiry), and apply for membership to a guild. The alternative is to add another page to the social panel that does this as well. One other suggestion would be to put a plaque on each ship portal by the door that can be clicked on for more guild information. Some basic stats would also be neat, but not necessary, because stats on my.ddo are so out of touch with reality.
4. Need a replacement to fill in the void caused by the demise of guild-slotted equipment. Not a total replacement, rather something that fills the greatest void. Two new ship amenities - each with different level for different level guilds. Same buff as available from guild augment crystals - so does not stack with itself.(Again thank you to Fearmaker and Alyonna for the suggestion)
   
   • Tiny: no ship available so not applicable
   • Small: Minimum Guild Level 25
     
     • Hit Point Shrine:+10 stacking maximum HP
     • Spell Point Shrine: +40 stacking maximum SP (+80 to Sorcerers and Favored Souls)
   • Medium: Minimum Guild Level 45
     
     • Hit Point Shrine: +15 stacking maximum HP
     • Spell Point Shrine: +60 stacking maximum SP (+80 to Sorcerers and Favored Souls)
   • Large: Minimum Guild Level 70
     
     • Hit Point Shrine: +30 stacking maximum HP
     • Spell Point Shrine: +80 stacking maximum SP (+160 to Sorcerers and Favored Souls)
5. Add a simple walkthrough to the guildship showroom. Allow people to get on a ship with all the hookpoints showing so they can see if they want to upgrade or buy a ship. Only the Captain is on the ship. Thank you to Skarlet for the suggestion!

as you can see - accounts are only included towards decay math if they earn renown - and only for that day; plus for the guilds currently experiencing decay, most will see only a minor shift in decay; but does help all guilds.

[Tshober]

until then - upon request and also since edited and updated and added an additional idea

Your proposal still takes us back to a system where players who earn less renown than they cost in decay will be unwelcome in any guild that wants to level up. That is why the old decay system was rejected. The current system does not have this problem and it is superior to your plan for that reason. The current system can be improved even more by extending the decay reduction to the smallest guilds that have not received any decay relief yet.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Your ...

I asked for simple clarification on your suggestion and am still waiting.

[Tshober]

I asked for simple clarification on your suggestion and am still waiting.

I don't know what suggestion you are referring to. All I said was your plan is inferior to the current system. It was not a suggestion. It was a statement.


But here is a suggestion: Change your plan to include the following statement:

"This plan will ensure that no player can ever cost his guild more in decay than the amount of renown that player earns. So no player can ever earn less than zero net (after his decay amount is subtracted) renown."


This will make your plan truly fair to casual and social players. If that is really what you want, a system that is fair to all types of players, then you should have no problem with adding the above to your plan.

[UurlockYgmeov]

doing math



so is that =MIN(ROUNDUP(members/3,0),10)+10????

so divide members by 3, round up. min 2, max 10 then +10 (so from 12 to 20)

or is it divide members by 3, round up, min 2 max 10??? (so from 2 to 10)

or is it from 2 to 20?

currently am doing it the 12 to 20 method.

this was the question ---- from the suggestion you and gremmlynn forwarded.

I don't know what suggestion you are referring to. All I said was your plan is inferior to the current system. It was not a suggestion. It was a statement.


But here is a suggestion: Change your plan to include the following statement:

"This plan will ensure that no player can ever cost his guild more in decay than the amount of renown that player earns. So no player can ever earn less than zero net (after his decay amount is subtracted) renown."

the current system allows for this. and no - that suggestion is not true to the concept of decay; would mean a guild could *never* backslide or loose renown.

[Tshober]

this was the question ---- from the suggestion you and gremmlynn forwarded.

That was not my suggestion. I believe Grem suggested it. You should ask him to clarify it if there is something unclear to you.

[Tshober]

the current system allows for this. and no - that suggestion is not true to the concept of decay; would mean a guild could *never* backslide or loose renown.

No your plan does not allow for it and that is why your plan is inferior to the current system, because the current system does allow for it. And, this also demonstrates that your goal is for guilds to lose ground, or as you said "backslide". You want guilds to be stuck in place and unable to advance. If you did not, then there would be no grounds for you to object to my suggestion. What harm is there if guilds don't lose ground?

[UurlockYgmeov]

That was not my suggestion. I believe Grem suggested it. You should ask him to clarify it if there is something unclear to you.

hmm... well kindly repost the suggestion - since that person is /squelched and I refuse to unsquelch.

and one other observation about the suggestion - yes it does bring some relief to small guilds, the 30 day inactive period nullifies most of the benefits to medium guilds - so would cause pressure to boot to lower the modified guild size. just a quick observation. bringing numbers to that might be difficult since would have to be speculative (my.ddo.data) etc. the other thing is that the medium and small guilds don't want decay relief as much as fair decay across the board - the glass ceiling lifted.

[UurlockYgmeov]

No your plan does not allow for it and that is why your plan is inferior to the current system, because the current system does allow for it. And, this also demonstrates that your goal is for guilds to lose ground, or as you said "backslide". You want guilds to be stuck in place and unable to advance. If you did not, then there would be no grounds for you to object to my suggestion.

False - I want all guilds to prosper in a fair system that rewards play, but doesn't penalize inclusive or exclusive behavior.

True, a guild can and should be able to loose renown through decay (and booting) - if a guild under my suggestion has no one log in and generate renown - the guild looses at most 250 renown per day at level 100; level 50 is only 125; and level 25 63 - no matter the size of the guild.

Humorous anecdote.
"If a guild isn't making itself famous - then history will forget it, and it will slide into object obscurity.

But if a guild is out questing - doing heroic deeds and legendary victories that the mistrals will sing about (and be paid in renown - maybe that is what happens to the renown decayed? the mistrals ate it? :P ) then the guild will be remembered. However, memory is a fickle beast, very short and not long lived, faded glory fades fast unless quickly renewed with bold deeds."

[eris2323]

False - I want all guilds to prosper in a fair system that rewards play, but doesn't penalize inclusive or exclusive behavior.

This is untrue - or you would be open to Tshobers suggestion.

You want to penalize some guilds for not being active enough, and you want the large guilds to shoulder all of that burden. You want a system that favours small and tiny guilds and destroys the large guilds.

[Tshober]

False - I want all guilds to prosper in a fair system that rewards play, but doesn't penalize inclusive or exclusive behavior.

Regardless of whether you want it or not, your plan does not achieve it. It will still have players who earn less renown than they cost in decay and there will still be incentive to shun/kick such players.