Guild Renown Changes

[UurlockYgmeov]

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.

there will always be an incentive to boot/kick/shun players - all a system can do is minimize it and eliminate it 99.999% from the system. that majority of the perceived benefit of booting/shunning/kicking players is just that - perception - not fact. If it isn't decay then it will be some other inane reason.

You want decay eliminated. Agree - but probably not going to happen.

So now you want it impossible to loose renown, essentially eliminated decay.

How about opening up and looking past that if both of those don't fly (ie the devs say no) - then what?

I will tell you what - just for you again - will include 'eliminate decay or make it impossible to loose renown period as the first line of the proposal' as a compromise, as long as you accept that and look towards the 'what if it doesn't fly' and you need a backup spare kobold.

[eris2323]

there will always be an incentive to boot/kick/shun players - all a system can do is minimize it and eliminate it 99.999% from the system. that majority of the perceived benefit of booting/shunning/kicking players is just that - perception - not fact. If it isn't decay then it will be some other inane reason.

You want decay eliminated. Agree - but probably not going to happen.

So now you want it impossible to loose renown, essentially eliminated decay.

How about opening up and looking past that if both of those don't fly (ie the devs say no) - then what?

I will tell you what - just for you again - will include 'eliminate decay or make it impossible to loose renown period as the first line of the proposal' as a compromise, as long as you accept that and look towards the 'what if it doesn't fly' and you need a backup spare kobold.

Right now, I have no incentive to kick anyone - I'm already paying the maximum decay per day for my guild, it won't go higher.

I can also invite anyone I like, without a care in the world for if they are casual, or powergamers, or will be able to pay back the renown decay.

Current system, to me, is better than yours.

[Tshober]

I will tell you what - just for you again - will include 'eliminate decay or make it impossible to loose renown period as the first line of the proposal' as a compromise, as long as you accept that and look towards the 'what if it doesn't fly' and you need a backup spare kobold.

I have stated, several times, that if the devs are totally unwilling to do any further decay reduction at all, then I would be open to increasing the small guild bonuses, if that is needed to keep small guilds viable and able to advance. The devs have already added new ways to earn renown in the game that were not there when this thread started so that will help too.

[Tshober]

So now you want it impossible to loose renown, essentially eliminated decay.

My suggestion does not eliminate decay (though I sincerely wish it would be eliminated). My suggestion allows every player to lose ALL of the renown they earn, all the way down to zero. It just prevents them from losing more renown than they earned.

How does that hurt anybody?

[Gremmlynn]

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.

The proposal I made rounded down and I had figured it for 12-20 after the static +10 modifier. But it could go 2-10 or 2-20 if either of those work better. Any of those would be an improvement for "very small" and at least some "small" guilds, while 2-20 would even help out the smallest of the "large" guilds (those with 51-59 members).

Edit:Nm, apparently I'm squelched lol.

[UurlockYgmeov]

My suggestion does not eliminate decay (though I sincerely wish it would be eliminated). My suggestion allows every player to lose ALL of the renown they earn, all the way down to zero. It just prevents them from losing more renown than they earned.

How does that hurt anybody?

It hurts the game.

Renown is not Experience. It is renown points and experience points - not renown experience. Two completely separate and different systems.

So if how does a guild ever loose renown? How does a guild ever decay or loose a level? So this effectively removes decay from the game.

So effectively the new suggestion is just like the old suggestion if you boil it down to its essence.

[eris2323]

It hurts the game.

Renown is not Experience. It is renown points and experience points - not renown experience. Two completely separate and different systems.

So if how does a guild ever loose renown? How does a guild ever decay or loose a level? So this effectively removes decay from the game.

So effectively the new suggestion is just like the old suggestion if you boil it down to its essence.

Well, with the current system, you see, it DOES cost renown to keep a guild at a certain level - your system seems to want to remove almost all of that.

The current system and current numbers, while high right now, are already usable and do-able.

All that really needs to be changed is to give the tiny guilds a little bit of a break.

The system doesn't need to be re-designed, as you suggest, to give a 93% discount to renown - it just needs to be tweaked a bit to help out the last people still suffering.

I would rather work with a system that fosters community, like the current system, personally.

[Tshober]

So if how does a guild ever loose renown? How does a guild ever decay or loose a level? So this effectively removes decay from the game.

Guilds will NOT lose levels under my suggestion. Not losing levels is GOOD thing!!! You should be happy for those guilds that will not lose levels.

Again, this only demonstrates that you want guilds to stagnate and lose levels. And your plan ensures that they will do so. A side effect of that is it will encourage guilds to shun/kick the lowest renown earners and those guilds that do so will be rewarded with less decay by your system. The current system does not have this problem. That is why the current system is superior to your plan.

[Charononus]

Guilds will NOT lose levels under my suggestion. Not losing levels is GOOD thing!!! You should be happy for those guilds that will not lose levels.

Again, this only demonstrates that you want guilds to stagnate and lose levels. And your plan ensures that they will do so. A side effect of that is it will encourage guilds to shun/kick the lowest renown earners and those guilds that do so will be rewarded with less decay by your system. The current system does not have this problem. That is why the current system is superior to your plan.

His dislike of the decay can not make renown less than zero option, proves to me his goal is not in fact to make the system fair to all guilds but to encourage small exclusive guilds and penalize large inclusive guilds. Honestly I think part of this is turbines fault for trying to support guild sizes from solo to 1000 players. Most games I've played have had a minimum account size for a guild not to be deleted from the system with in a set amount of time between 24 hours and one week. It's too late to implement that kind of system now and I'm not suggesting it, but I think part of the problem is the initial concept tried to support too much, sort of like how the d20 broke down for ac once the spread of ac values got too large.

[Tshober]

His dislike of the decay can not make renown less than zero option, proves to me his goal is not in fact to make the system fair to all guilds but to encourage small exclusive guilds and penalize large inclusive guilds. Honestly I think part of this is turbines fault for trying to support guild sizes from solo to 1000 players. Most games I've played have had a minimum account size for a guild not to be deleted from the system with in a set amount of time between 24 hours and one week. It's too late to implement that kind of system now and I'm not suggesting it, but I think part of the problem is the initial concept tried to support too much, sort of like how the d20 broke down for ac once the spread of ac values got too large.

I agree on both of your points. It is partly because DDO is trying to satisfy too broad a range of guild sizes. But as you suggest, that genie is already out of the bottle.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I agree on both of your points. It is partly because DDO is trying to satisfy too broad a range of guild sizes. But as you suggest, that genie is already out of the bottle.

You are discriminating against guilds because they don't fit your ideal profile.

Guilds will NOT lose levels under my suggestion. Not losing levels is GOOD thing!!! You should be happy for those guilds that will not lose levels.

Again, this only demonstrates that you want guilds to stagnate and lose levels. And your plan ensures that they will do so. A side effect of that is it will encourage guilds to shun/kick the lowest renown earners and those guilds that do so will be rewarded with less decay by your system. The current system does not have this problem. That is why the current system is superior to your plan.

STOP TWISTING MY WORDS AND INTENT!
I don't ever want any guild to loose renown - but it must be possible.

I offered a compromise that would have put both of your suggestions ahead of mine and you still .....

Still haven't gotten a response yet. *shrug* probably won't ever.

/Squelched. Enough is enough. You are part of the problem not part of the solution. Instead of trying to work through to a compromise or at least acknowledge what is broken you and your accomplices just try to throw verbal sewage and roadblocks in the way of any conversation that might lead to a breakthrough... It is always no, no, no, no, no, no, liar, hate, wrong ---- all negative and no positive, all word spin and no substance. SHOW ME HOW MY PLAN DOES WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES, don't just point and be negative. It is a cornerstone of effective communication - and effective communication also consists of 85% listening.

I have shown you repeatedly, over-and-over how the system fixes the broken system, creates a positive guild atmosphere, and allows defunct guilds to slowly (oh so slowly) slip away - how it promotes being able to play with whom you wish, and play the way you want - without fear of ruining a guild for your friends. We've done this in a way that is so easy to do - they can do most of it without bringing the servers down.

That makes 4 squelched for being just plain uncooperative. I have been far more reasonable and patient than anyone ever have the right to expect.

I apologize to the moderators for this rant - but enough is enough. At least I will be able to see the proposal without having to go 10 pages deep to find it.

All I have ever striven to do so far is to be neutral, fair, impartial and try to find the best solution for the players and the game. I won't stop now.

[Charononus]

You are discriminating against guilds because they don't fit your ideal profile.



STOP TWISTING MY WORDS AND INTENT!
I don't ever want any guild to loose renown - but it must be possible.

I offered a compromise that would have put both of your suggestions ahead of mine and you still .....

Still haven't gotten a response yet. *shrug* probably won't ever.

/Squelched. Enough is enough. You are part of the problem not part of the solution. Instead of trying to work through to a compromise or at least acknowledge what is broken you and your accomplices just try to throw verbal sewage and roadblocks in the way of any conversation that might lead to a breakthrough... It is always no, no, no, no, no, no, you hate, you hate, your plan is wrong ---- all negative and no positive, all word spin and no substance. SHOW ME HOW MY PLAN DOES WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES, don't just point and be negative. It is a cornerstone of effective communication - and effective communication also consists of 85% listening.

I have shown you repeatedly, over-and-over how the system fixes the broken system, creates a positive guild atmosphere, and allows defunct guilds to slowly (oh so slowly) slip away - how it promotes being able to play with whom you wish, and play the way you want - without fear of ruining a guild for your friends. We've done this in a way that is so easy to do - they can do most of it without bringing the servers down.

That makes 4 squelched for being just plain uncooperative. I have been far more reasonable and patient than anyone ever have the right to expect.

I apologize to the moderators for this rant - but enough is enough. At least I will be able to see the proposal without having to go 10 pages deep to find it.

Well you've said you squelched me so this won't help you but hopefully it will help those that are still reading this thread. You claim that effective communication involves listening, well you haven't been listening, we (myself and others) have explained over and over and over and over again how your system makes it possible for a casual player to create more decay for a guild than they bring in and how that creates a poisonous atmosphere that drives new and casual players away from this game. Inclusion of new and casual players helps bring more players into the game, creating more pugs, more money for turbine, and more people to socialize with. Anything that can cause 0.000000000000000001% damage to this is something to be avoided with the guild system.

[UurlockYgmeov]

you claim it does - you haven't shown - only speculated.

I have shown repeatedly.

I even now have the spreadsheet nearly finished that shows the various systems.

Just because Kobold says it is so doesn't make it so.

[eris2323]

You are discriminating against guilds because they don't fit your ideal profile.



STOP TWISTING MY WORDS AND INTENT!
I don't ever want any guild to loose renown - but it must be possible.

I offered a compromise that would have put both of your suggestions ahead of mine and you still .....

Still haven't gotten a response yet. *shrug* probably won't ever.

/Squelched. Enough is enough. You are part of the problem not part of the solution. Instead of trying to work through to a compromise or at least acknowledge what is broken you and your accomplices just try to throw verbal sewage and roadblocks in the way of any conversation that might lead to a breakthrough... It is always no, no, no, no, no, no, liar, hate, wrong ---- all negative and no positive, all word spin and no substance. SHOW ME HOW MY PLAN DOES WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES, don't just point and be negative. It is a cornerstone of effective communication - and effective communication also consists of 85% listening.

I have shown you repeatedly, over-and-over how the system fixes the broken system, creates a positive guild atmosphere, and allows defunct guilds to slowly (oh so slowly) slip away - how it promotes being able to play with whom you wish, and play the way you want - without fear of ruining a guild for your friends. We've done this in a way that is so easy to do - they can do most of it without bringing the servers down.

That makes 4 squelched for being just plain uncooperative. I have been far more reasonable and patient than anyone ever have the right to expect.

I apologize to the moderators for this rant - but enough is enough. At least I will be able to see the proposal without having to go 10 pages deep to find it.

All I have ever striven to do so far is to be neutral, fair, impartial and try to find the best solution for the players and the game. I won't stop now.

I don't see how we can discuss your system when you keep squelching every single person you talk to, but it seems like you are having a bad day, and need to relax a little.

It seems that you think if you scream it loud enough and squelch people, we will have no choice but to accept your proposal.

Except the facts are that not many are interested in your system, it has flaws that have been pointed out to you multiple times, and every time, you go off into a rant and squelch someone.

It's very hard to take this seriously at this point.

[Charononus]

Yes, we remember; you three agree totally with what your fearless leader says, every time, no matter what, no thought required.

If I wanted to bother going through the 18 pages of responses and rants, I'm sure the numbers against it are higher.

Luckily, it's not up for vote. It's up for discussion. So discuss, instead of spamming us repeatedly.

Spam is something we're supposed to be able to report for, so when they put a one word response under that monstrousity just to spam it, report it and don't respond to it.

[UurlockYgmeov]

The Old, The Temp, Option A, Option B.
all formula are in excel notation format

will post showing math each of the 4 systems, first will be just decay per day per guild by level and size; then will be showing the decay per day member per guild size/level.

Math is interesting. Removed all speculation in order to compare systems solely upon mathematical results. Actual results might vary based upon the number of inactive accounts in a specific guild and other factors.

First the math for the Old system is well documented:

ROUND(LevelModifier*(MAX(TotalMembers,10)+10),0)

LevelModifier:
Same table as the Old System
TotalMembers:
Guild size in total accounts- otherwise would have to guess at number of inactive accounts.


Second the math for the Temporary system is also well documented:

LevelModifier * 20

LevelModifier:
Same table as the Old System

Third the math for the Proposed system A

ROUND((MAX(MIN(ROUNDUP(GuildSize/3,0),20),2))*LevelModifier,0)

(GuildSize / 3 - minimum of 2; maximum of 20)

This gives a minimum size of 2, and a maximum size of 20.
GuildSize:
Total members of a guild - otherwise would have to guess at a number of inactive accounts.
LevelModifier:
Same table as the Old System

special note - since this math must presume maximum guild account and not inactive - guild with nine and up might see less decay, depending upon how many inactive accounts the guild has however: since the system uses a thirty day until inactive, this reduction is not very great.

Third the math for the Proposed system B

ROUND((ModifiedGuildSize*GuildLevel*2.5),0)

GuildLevel:
Level of the guild

ModifiedGuildSize:
since the system only includes those that generate renown within the twenty-four hour decay window(period of time between daily assignment of decay) had to best estimate average number of members that would actually affect decay: set to 25% (so maxguildsize * .25) which accounts for the highest days (friday, saturday, sunday) and the lowest days (monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday).

[Tshober]

STOP TWISTING MY WORDS AND INTENT!
I don't ever want any guild to loose renown - but it must be possible.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Seriously, if you really, really, really, really don't ever, ever, ever, want guilds to stagnate and lose levels, then why do you object to changing your plan to ensure that they won't? Why must it be possible? Your argument here makes no sense at all.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Before I post the actual data - kindly double check the formula.

I will post images - and a link to a read only Google docs spreadsheet for independent review.

This isn't about which system is best - or which should be - rather just a clinical look at the numbers behind the systems.

I have eliminated as much of the speculation in the system so comparisons should be based strictly on apples-to-apples.

[eris2323]

I am not real interested in reading yet another wall of text; have you added a cap to your formula yet, or is it still just a transparent attempt to bring back the old renown systems failures and at the same immediately helping your own guild?

As long as you keep squelching all opposition and destroying conversation about your system... not really interested in wasting my own time even bothering to read....

TL;DR

[UurlockYgmeov]

First chart:



please verify for veracity.

Second chart:


Third chart: