Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

The cool thing about being squelched is that you're the only one who doesn't see my posts, all of the rest of the forum population do

But, yet again, you have proven my point - you are not here to discuss, you are here to preach your sermon, and you will silence all who oppose you!

Luckily you succeeded in PART of your proposal - you wanted your system to be transparent - well; it is - it's transparently obvious that it will harm the game and large guilds, solely to benefit tiny and solo guilds.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I know that's why imo he wants to punish large guilds who foster a sense of community for all players. I don't get it, it harms the game, it's why I sometimes think he works for NWO.

/squelch. DFTT

[Tshober]

I know that's why imo he wants to punish large guilds who foster a sense of community for all players. I don't get it, it harms the game, it's why I sometimes think he works for NWO.

Well, he does say that he never ever wants any guild to lose levels but he absolutely insists that his plan must allow them to do just that. I don't know what to make of that logic. Your theory makes more sense than that to me and I am usually very skeptical about conspiracies.

[UurlockYgmeov]

And it doesn't change that decay per account damages the playerbase's sense of community.

We never left decay per account - just now the large guilds don't feel it.

Examples:

• ten account level 100 guild : 6,750 decay per account.
• one-hundred account level 100 guild: 675 decay per account
• one-thousand account level 100 guild: 67.5 decay per account.

That is decay per account. the temporary system is as broken as the old system.

Now lets find a solution rather than pointing fingers and feeding the trolls.

[Charononus]

Well, he does say that he never ever wants any guild to lose levels but he absolutely insists that his plan must allow them to do just that. I don't know what to make of that logic. Your theory makes more sense than that to me and I am usually very skeptical about conspiracies.

Exactly there has been such a low amount of logic that leads to two options, one is probably against forum rules to state, the other is conspiracy theory.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Well, he does say that he never ever wants any guild to lose levels but he absolutely insists that his plan must allow them to do just that. I don't know what to make of that logic.

TINC.

personally - I don't want guild to loose levels. That is personally.

The system on the other hand needs balance. For balance to be present in a system - there must be a chance of loosing a level.

[Charononus]

TINC.

personally - I don't want guild to loose levels. That is personally.

The system on the other hand needs balance. For balance to be present in a system - there must be a chance of loosing a level.

That's not balance it's a poor design in guild xp just like it was in character xp.

[Zargarx]

Unless told otherwise, guild size cannot be part of the equation as per dev post.

So, outside of removing renown (that also does not appear to be an option), how can mitigate the heavy decay rate per account for smaller guilds that was massively reduced for large guild?

I've made a few previous suggestion with the following a slightly adjusted version of my favorite.

As almost all of the better buffs are below guild level 65, my suggestion is that decay is linear from level 26 to 60, and then accelerates until level 100 matches the current decay rate (basically compress the decay scaling to above level 60).

This does minimizes the decay impact for almost all small guilds while still keeping decay very relevant if trying to reach level 100 for power guilds.

There will not be any perfect solution, but given the current info given by the devs I think this is a reasonable and likely quick/simple change.

[Tshober]

We never left decay per account - just now the large guilds don't feel it.

Examples:
[list][*]ten account level 100 guild : 6,750 decay per account.[*]one-hundred account level 100 guild: 675 decay per account[*]one-thousand account level 100 guild: 67.5 decay per account.

That is decay per account. the temporary system is as broken as the old system.

I think I am squelched but...

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what was being discussed. The current system adds no additional decay per account at all. None. But both the old decay system and your proposal do add more decay for each account. That is why your plan has the same problems that the old system had.

[Tshober]

TINC.

personally - I don't want guild to loose levels. That is personally.

The system on the other hand needs balance. For balance to be present in a system - there must be a chance of loosing a level.

Help me out here. How does guilds losing levels equal balance? It sounds like some silly philosophical yin/yang thing. If we all agree that guilds losing levels is bad, why not just make it so it does not happen. What does that hurt? The mystical balance of the universe? What exactly is the harm done to DDO if guilds don't lose levels?

[UurlockYgmeov]

I think I am squelched but...

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what was being discussed. The current system adds no additional decay per account at all. None. But both the old decay system and your proposal do add more decay for each account. That is why your plan has the same problems that the old system had.

With all due respect I do understand. The old system just had way too much decay that ramped up way too high as you got higher in levels. (went from a 2.5 multiplier to a 4 (IIRC) multiplier at level 100).

The old system had per account on both sides of the equation. Now the temporary system has a 20 in place of the account on one side of the equation - but still retains the per account on the other.

As long as their is decay - their will always be a per account on one side of the equation.

Math to compute decay on one side of the equation - and the other side is math to compute decay shares.

[Decay Computation] = [Decay Share]

best I can come up with to explain

It isn't about how many members earn - it is about just plain how many members.

In order to remove the bias you must have accounts on both side of the equation.

I know people don't understand or choose to understand this and let the flaming begin.

Its about a balanced system - and system B (my proposal does that) AND eliminates the pressure to boot due to guild size optimization.

[Nestroy]

Tshober,

do you remember our discussion on guild renown in the general forum?

I do fondly remember - partly because Uur was not spamming, but mostly because there were loooots of good ideas brought up.

In regard of guilds being able to go back into obscurity, there was one solution proposed by quite a lot of players to formulate a hefty decay penalty for guilds that went completely inactive (no log in of any member within a month) until they finally dissolve automatically after a given period of time.

This easy-to-implement (a few simple SQL statements would suffice) solution would work fine for all active guilds, would as well help clean up the servers from the garbage guilds and would fullfill the one and only function of decay we could think off: Weed out the inactive.

But then again, this does not look that beautifully annyoing pink on every full-spammed side in this thread as with other "solutions" presented here.

[Charononus]

With all due respect I do understand. The old system just had way too much decay that ramped up way too high as you got higher in levels. (went from a 2.5 multiplier to a 4 (IIRC) multiplier at level 100).

The old system had per account on both sides of the equation. Now the temporary system has a 20 in place of the account on one side of the equation - but still retains the per account on the other.

As long as their is decay - their will always be a per account on one side of the equation.

Math to compute decay on one side of the equation - and the other side is math to compute decay shares.

[Decay Computation] = [Decay Share]

best I can come up with to explain

It isn't about how many members earn - it is about just plain how many members.

In order to remove the bias you must have accounts on both side of the equation.

I know people don't understand or choose to understand this and let the flaming begin.

Its about a balanced system - and system B (my proposal does that) AND eliminates the pressure to boot due to guild size optimization.

You keep claiming that it eliminates the pressure to boot, we keep saying it does not and offering reasons why it doesn't. You want to actually convince someone refute the point don't just keep repeating yourself. Unless you know others are right.

What you call bias others call the facts of life, more people can accomplish something of this nature faster than less people.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Help me out here. How does guilds losing levels equal balance? It sounds like some silly philosophical yin/yang thing. If we all agree that guilds losing levels is bad, why not just make it so it does not happen. What does that hurt? The mystical balance of the universe? What exactly is the harm done to DDO if guilds don't lose levels?

The specific reasons are for the devs to say. I can only speculate, and rather not because the doomsayers will spin my thoughts.

I can say that the system has always had the possibility of possible decline and atrophy.

I can also say that the first choice of my proposal is to eliminate decay.

If the dev's aren't willing to eliminate decay - then that also means they won't be willing to make it so that you can't actually loose renown - because they essentially are the same concept.

What we can do is minimize the amount a person can loose - and the ways they can loose it. Currently with only test numbers - the most that can be lost by anyone earning renown in a level 50 guild (of any size) is 125 renown. And since it is over 350,000 renown from level 49-50 and over 380,000 renown from level 50 to 51 - it would take 2,940 player renown days of not getting a trophy in order to backslide enough to go from mid 50 to mid 49.

[Tshober]

Tshober,

do you remember our discussion on guild renown in the general forum?

I do fondly remember - partly because Uur was not spamming, but mostly because there were loooots of good ideas brought up.

In regard of guilds being able to go back into obscurity, there was one solution proposed by quite a lot of players to formulate a hefty decay penalty for guilds that went completely inactive (no log in of any member within a month) until they finally dissolve automatically after a given period of time.

This easy-to-implement (a few simple SQL statements would suffice) solution would work fine for all active guilds, would as well help clean up the servers from the garbage guilds and would fullfill the one and only function of decay we could think off: Weed out the inactive.

But then again, this does not look that beautifully annyoing pink on every full-spammed side in this thread as with other "solutions" presented here.

Yes, lots of good ideas were being discussed until somewhat recently. Now because we have to deal with a spammer, it is far more difficult to discuss any other ideas. Most people in this thread have had the simple courtesy to post their proposal once or twice and then refer to it thereafter with links. That allowed many different ideas to all get equal discussion.

[UurlockYgmeov]

In regard of guilds being able to go back into obscurity, there was one solution proposed by quite a lot of players to formulate a hefty decay penalty for guilds that went completely inactive (no log in of any member within a month) until they finally dissolve automatically after a given period of time.

Good idea - kindly develop it further and will include it in the proposal!

• In regard of guilds being able to go back into obscurity, there was one solution proposed by quite a lot of players to formulate a hefty decay penalty for guilds that went completely inactive (no log in of any member within a month) until they finally dissolve automatically after a given period of time. Thank you Nestroy!

[eris2323]

Good idea - kindly develop it further and will include it in the proposal!

• In regard of guilds being able to go back into obscurity, there was one solution proposed by quite a lot of players to formulate a hefty decay penalty for guilds that went completely inactive (no log in of any member within a month) until they finally dissolve automatically after a given period of time. Thank you Nestroy!

So.... wait... now you want people to actually lose their guilds if they go too casual?

This is a disgusting proposal, and I will not support that either.

That would also actively harm the game and the social atmosphere.

It actually works to destroy solo guilds entirely - woops, I got involved with another game, there goes my guild, forever. Never mind the fact that someone might have paid money for their guild, their ship; now you want to impose your own morality of 'you must play or there goes your guild'

You just can't seem to stop latching onto bad ideas.

The continued attacks by you on large guilds, medium guilds, and now towards tiny and solo guilds is baffling; I request you stop attacking everyones playstyle and insisting we play the same way you do.

[Tshober]

The specific reasons are for the devs to say. I can only speculate, and rather not because the doomsayers will spin my thoughts.

I can say that the system has always had the possibility of possible decline and atrophy.

I can also say that the first choice of my proposal is to eliminate decay.

If the dev's aren't willing to eliminate decay - then that also means they won't be willing to make it so that you can't actually loose renown - because they essentially are the same concept.

What we can do is minimize the amount a person can loose - and the ways they can loose it. Currently with only test numbers - the most that can be lost by anyone earning renown in a level 50 guild (of any size) is 125 renown. And since it is over 350,000 renown from level 49-50 and over 380,000 renown from level 50 to 51 - it would take 2,940 player renown days of not getting a trophy in order to backslide enough to go from mid 50 to mid 49.

First, my suggestion of having a minimum net decay of zero does not eliminate decay. You can still lose all of the renown you earned to decay, all the way down to zero.

You are arguing that the total amount that can be lost to decay in your plan as it is now (w/o my suggestion) is tiny. Logically that means that the difference between your plan with my suggestion and your plan without my suggestion must be just as tiny. If the difference really is as tiny as you claim, then why not just incorporate my suggestion? It would only reduce decay just a tiny bit more, by your own numbers, and it would eliminate the possibility that players might be shunned/kicked because they earned less renown than they cost in decay. Such a tiny difference in decay amount is surely worth not discriminating against casual & social players, isn't it?

[eris2323]

We never left decay per account - just now the large guilds don't feel it.

Examples:
[list][*]ten account level 100 guild : 6,750 decay per account.[*]one-hundred account level 100 guild: 675 decay per account[*]one-thousand account level 100 guild: 67.5 decay per account.

That is decay per account. the temporary system is as broken as the old system.

Now lets find a solution rather than pointing fingers and feeding the trolls.

It is very hard to have a 1000 account guild; you're at the max, and each character would have only one char in guild.

Most large guilds allow the alts - I know, I know, you have no experience with this situation, but that's how it goes...

Why you would even discuss a 1000 account guild is beyond me; I'm not sure such a beast has ever existed, or will.

Looks like you're just using unrealistic number again, to emphasize the differences - but nevertheless, unrealistic they are

[Tshober]

In regard of guilds being able to go back into obscurity, there was one solution proposed by quite a lot of players to formulate a hefty decay penalty for guilds that went completely inactive (no log in of any member within a month) until they finally dissolve automatically after a given period of time. Thank you Nestroy!

Actually, I don't have a problem with this. If no player in the guild even logs in once in an entire month, then that guild is effectively a dead guild. I see no good reason to perpetuate dead guilds. If a member of such a dead guild comes back to DDO, then they can join another guild or buy a new guild charter and start over. IMO, we already have far too many dead guilds in this game. If there is great objection from the solo guild crowd, then I could see maybe extending the time limit to 2 or 3 months, but for me 1 month seems fine.