Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

THIS.

I may not see eye to eye with you on large guilds vs (we) small guilds, but take my ship that I paid Real $ for (and coerced my few friends into buying lots of renown potions to reach 55) and I'm OUT.
Heck- I can get a free base in DCUO without worrying I'll lose it due to decay.

We may only be able to do 1-3 quests per night, but don't penalize us for being casual.

(as an aside- it's sad that people regard 2-3 hours PER NIGHT as casual)

I do not want to hurt your game; I just want the guild system, if it gets changed again, to NOT destroy our large guild that we have also spent literally years building.

I do agree that small and casual guilds should get a tiny bit more of a break - if it's killing them, then help them out... but not at the expense of our players in OUR guild. I did like gremmlynns idea; it was simple, and would help small guilds immediately, without requiring a lot of programming changes.

Only reason I'm so vocal is really, if the system changes to penalize large guilds, I can not see ANY reason to stay on this game; others will allow me to have the kind of guild *I* want - so I'd go there, I can not play a game that penalizes you for having a large guild, to me, it's the epitome of stupidity, in a multiplayer online game.

[Tshober]

Remove Decay.
I'll even give up my Small Guild Bonus if it means removing decay for everyone.

I agree with you that removing decay would be the best solution overall. That way ALL guilds, regardless of size or play-style, would be able to advance and to eventually reach the highest levels. Smaller guilds are hit harder by decay in the current system. Eliminating decay would benefit smaller guilds far more than it would larger guilds. However, smaller guilds, even with no decay, would still have a harder time earning renown than larger guilds. So it may well be that small guild bonuses are needed, even with no decay at all, to ensure that small guilds remain a viable option for players who prefer them to larger guilds.

[Gremmlynn]

I agree with you that removing decay would be the best solution overall. That way ALL guilds, regardless of size or play-style, would be able to advance and to eventually reach the highest levels. Smaller guilds are hit harder by decay in the current system. Eliminating decay would benefit smaller guilds far more than it would larger guilds. However, smaller guilds, even with no decay, would still have a harder time earning renown than larger guilds. So it may well be that small guild bonuses are needed, even with no decay at all, to ensure that small guilds remain a viable option for players who prefer them to larger guilds.

To me, this reads like the xp bonuses some games give accounts that have been inactive. The way I see it, if a guild doesn't put in the man hours another does, due to either fewer members or less active members, they shouldn't even expect to keep up. While I don't find the small guild bonus as really detrimental to the game, I don't see a real need for it, especially if decay were to go away.

[Tshober]

To me, this reads like the xp bonuses some games give accounts that have been inactive. The way I see it, if a guild doesn't put in the man hours another does, due to either fewer members or less active members, they shouldn't even expect to keep up. While I don't find the small guild bonus as really detrimental to the game, I don't see a real need for it, especially if decay were to go away.

I want to be sure small guilds are viable. It should not be impossible for them to level up, either because of decay or simply because the required renown is unattainable in a reasonable amount of time. For example, if it would take a small somewhat casual guild 20 years to level up to 100, that is not really any better than never getting there at all. Viability does not mean they will get there fast, but it does mean the time required should at least not be longer than the likely life of the game itself. I think that is where small guild bonuses could be helpful, even with no decay.

[Gremmlynn]

I want to be sure small guilds are viable. It should not be impossible for them to level up, either because of decay or simply because the required renown is unattainable in a reasonable amount of time. For example, if it would take a small somewhat casual guild 20 years to level up to 100, that is not really any better than never getting there at all. Viability does not mean they will get there fast, but it does mean the time required should at least not be longer than the likely life of the game itself. I think that is where small guild bonuses could be helpful, even with no decay.

What's a "small somewhat casual guild" though? Small and active or large and mostly casual are a lot better benchmarks to base things around. Even large and casual, if such a thing exists, shouldn't have expectations of great progress. Though the elimination of decay will ensure progress of some sort and eliminate the stagnation and sliding back that seems to be the root of most of the frustration. I just don't know how much progress a small casual guild should expect to make. I think of it this way, how much money would a small business with a part time owner and a few employees who show up when the mood hits them make? While I know this is a game and the players are customers, they should still realize that if they aren't playing enough to earn a lot of renown, it would be unreasonable to expect to make a lot of progress.

Some sort of small guild bonus wouldn't be bad. But anything that tries to "level the playing field" between casual and active players would be a slap in the face of the active players and anything that disadvantages active players for playing with casuals would be bad for the game as a whole.

[Tshober]

Some sort of small guild bonus wouldn't be bad. But anything that tries to "level the playing field" between casual and active players would be a slap in the face of the active players and anything that disadvantages active players for playing with casuals would be bad for the game as a whole.

I think we agree on that. My example, I thought, made it clear. If small guilds are in a situation where effectively they can never level up to the highest levels, then some adjustment of the small guild bonus might be appropriate. The devs should have the stats necessary to determine if small guilds are viable. It might be that no small guild bonus is needed at all. After all, eliminating decay will help them a lot. I just don't have the data to be able to say one way or the other so I must hold out the possibility that more help might be needed.

[Tychagara]

I think we need to start talking about a general framework for guilds - what we want from Turbine to improve our guild experience. Then continue the discussion on renown.

[Nestroy]

I think we need to start talking about a general framework for guilds - what we want from Turbine to improve our guild experience. Then continue the discussion on renown.

The question remains what the improvements for the experience would be.

There could be only a private opinion and I think that most regular contributors on this thread already have vokalized their thoughts on this at least once. And, as the discussions the last 20 or so pages have shown there is some discordance in opinions here.

[Tychagara]

The question remains what the improvements for the experience would be.

There could be only a private opinion and I think that most regular contributors on this thread already have vokalized their thoughts on this at least once. And, as the discussions the last 20 or so pages have shown there is some discordance in opinions here.

The that is perfect. Need a framework that works for everyone.

I will start.

• A guild consists of at least one account or more, to a maximum of 1000 accounts.
• A guild doesn't need to have a stated purpose

yes, the current is 1000 characters (can't find confirmation anywhere) from previous posts. This is my idea of the first part of the framework.

[eris2323]

I would add that no guild should ever be penalized for recruiting players, no matter how casual they are. If this means removal of decay, do it - if it means a cap on the system as it is now, do it. A guild leader should never have to count the cost of a 'casual' player earning back their 'renown debt' for the day.

I would add that 'tiny and solo' guilds shouldn't get so much of a bonus that it invalidates the work of large guilds, or makes it so that it makes more sense to go at it alone.

I would add that tiny and small guilds shouldn't expect to grow as fast as a large guild, although they should be able to grow.

I would add that solo guilds shouldn't get so much of a bonus to this system that it makes it easy to solo a guild to 100.

I'm sure some wouldn't agree with me.

And it feels like we're beating a dead horse, here.

Frankly, I kind of like the system we have now.

[Tshober]

I would add that no guild should ever be penalized for recruiting players, no matter how casual they are. If this means removal of decay, do it - if it means a cap on the system as it is now, do it. A guild leader should never have to count the cost of a 'casual' player earning back their 'renown debt' for the day.

I would add that 'tiny and solo' guilds shouldn't get so much of a bonus that it invalidates the work of large guilds, or makes it so that it makes more sense to go at it alone.

I would add that tiny and small guilds shouldn't expect to grow as fast as a large guild, although they should be able to grow.

I would add that solo guilds shouldn't get so much of a bonus to this system that it makes it easy to solo a guild to 100.

I'm sure some wouldn't agree with me.

And it feels like we're beating a dead horse, here.

Frankly, I kind of like the system we have now.

I pretty much agree with all of that. I would have stated some of it differently but the meaning would be essentially the same. I would have placed more emphasis on helping out the smaller guilds that are still struggling with decay. But nothing you said precludes that so overall, I agree.

[UurlockYgmeov]

The that is perfect. Need a framework that works for everyone.

I will start.

• A guild consists of at least one account or more, to a maximum of 1000 accounts.
• A guild doesn't need to have a stated purpose

yes, the current is 1000 characters (can't find confirmation anywhere) from previous posts. This is my idea of the first part of the framework.

I think I understand what you are going - building consensus by finding common agreements.

You are right - I don't think I have ever seen a definitive written statement by Turbine for the intentions of the guild system. I agree - we should work together to define the basic fundamentals.

• A guild will gain renown in direct proportion to the number of members it has earning, and how active they are.
• A guild should have leadership, and the ability to elect a second leader (hard to describe - kind of a proxy leader)
• Guild leadership needs to have the ability to delegate authority and responsibility
• Guild leadership needs to have effective tools to manage the guild roster, events, guild property (ship, amenities), and recruiting, and others.
• A guild needs to be able to gauge itself against other guilds on the same server and game wide.

[Tshober]

[*]A guild will gain renown in direct proportion to the number of members it has earning, and how active they are.

I totally disagree with this statement.

I would substitute:

"A guild will gain the amount of renown that all of its members earn."


This is much simpler and intuitive. There are a hundred ways to define how active someone is and likewise several different ways to count how many earners a guild has. Just leave all that junk out and say, if you earn renown your guild gets credit for it. Period.

[Tshober]

[*]A guild should have leadership, and the ability to elect a second leader (hard to describe - kind of a proxy leader)[*]Guild leadership needs to have the ability to delegate authority and responsibility[*]Guild leadership needs to have effective tools to manage the guild roster, events, guild property (ship, amenities), and recruiting, and others.

These are all pointless with a solo guild, but whatever.

[*]A guild needs to be able to gauge itself against other guilds on the same server and game wide.

Why? Why should I care about what other guilds are doing? I see no reason for this.

[Charononus]

• A guild needs to be able to gauge itself against other guilds on the same server and game wide.

This is the cause of all current guild problems with decay.

[eris2323]

I'm not at all interested in:

A guild needs to be able to gauge itself against other guilds on the same server and game wide

At all.

Really don't care how other guilds are doing, this is not a PVP game, and I like it that way

editted to add: perhaps people won't complain about the advancement of their guilds if there are no guild leaderboards to get jealous about other guilds with

[curiouspilot]

Since the change, the largest guild "Legends of Orien" on Orien, has already gone from lvl60(they'd been lvl60 for years) to lvl90 now, and there's no more individual effort. In other words, everyone in the guild just plays casually as always, to get the guild to eventual lvl100.

[Tshober]

Since the change, the largest guild "Legends of Orien" on Orien, has already gone from lvl60(they'd been lvl60 for years) to lvl90 now, and there's no more individual effort. In other words, everyone in the guild just plays casually as always, to get the guild to eventual lvl100.

Yes, that is my guild. We were stuck in the low 60's for many months. We are also the most active guild on our server. We ALWAYS have more players logged in playing DDO than any other guild on our server, 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, and we have been the most active guild on the server for more than a year. We have lots of people who play many hours each day. We also have many people who play infrequently. We have people who RP. We have people who spend much of their time online chatting with their friends. We have people who are constantly raiding. We have every type of player in our guild and we all work together to level it up. Our doors are open to anyone who is willing to play by the rules (both of them) as long as we are not full, which we often are.

Don't you think it's fair that the most active guild, by a huge margin, and the most inclusive and open guild on the server ought to be able to level up? Or is it your opinion that extremely active guilds must be stagnated and unable to ever level up, just because they are large and willing to accept all types of players?

[Gremmlynn]

I think we agree on that. My example, I thought, made it clear. If small guilds are in a situation where effectively they can never level up to the highest levels, then some adjustment of the small guild bonus might be appropriate. The devs should have the stats necessary to determine if small guilds are viable. It might be that no small guild bonus is needed at all. After all, eliminating decay will help them a lot. I just don't have the data to be able to say one way or the other so I must hold out the possibility that more help might be needed.

The problem is, how do you decide where to set the benchmark for a small guild that can't make it to 100. Is it a single player guild that plays 1 hour/month? What it really comes down to is deciding how many man/hours played is required to reach 100. Any guild that is to small or to casual to play that much simply wont make it to 100 regardless of bonus.

Though I suppose replacing decay with a renown credit that would automatically level every guild to 100 over a set period of time, with any renown actually gained from playing just speeding the process up, would work. I just don't see very many people thinking it would be the way they would like to see things go.

[Tshober]

The problem is, how do you decide where to set the benchmark for a small guild that can't make it to 100. Is it a single player guild that plays 1 hour/month? What it really comes down to is deciding how many man/hours played is required to reach 100. Any guild that is to small or to casual to play that much simply wont make it to 100 regardless of bonus.

Though I suppose replacing decay with a renown credit that would automatically level every guild to 100 over a set period of time, with any renown actually gained from playing just speeding the process up, would work. I just don't see very many people thinking it would be the way they would like to see things go.

I am not a fan of making it easy for solo guilds to reach level 100. That would make working together pointless. If I had to make the decision on where to draw the line I would probably do something like the 99.9th percentile of non-dead guilds ranked by total renown earned per day and structure it so a guild at that percentile would take 4 or 5 years to reach 100. I don't have the data to do that so I will have to defer to the devs, who are going to do what they want anyway.

Also, I do not advocate any kind of "auto leveling" mechanism. I think that would also make it less attractive to work together with other players. I am a big fan of rewarding players for banding together with their fellow players to accomplish long term goals in all MMO's, not just DDO.