Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

+1

If the Dev's are unwilling to remove decay completely, then Uurlock's plan still the best so far.

Why? From what I've seen my plan is superior as it addresses the specific issue without having a negative effect, that it needs to be adjusted for, on other parts of the system. His system tries to compare apples and oranges and make a system that is "fair" for both. Better to concede that apples can't be compared to oranges and make a system that's workable for both. Especially as, in this case, we are dealing with an entire fruit salad.

[Tychagara]

Made even shorter and simplified for easy reading. Now the small guild haters might actually read.

CORE CONCEPTS:

• Guilds prosperity in a fair system should reward activity, but not penalize casual players.
• System removes size bias completely from the decay system.
• There will always be reasons to remove players from guilds, all that can done is to remove as much of that from the system as possible. cannot ever truely remove all of it.
• Renown is not Experience and should not be looked at in the same way. The renown system is not like the experience system.

Eliminate Decay Altogether

but if Turbine says no, then:

1. only those members who generate renown are counted toward modified guild size and only for the day they generate renown. (for mail checkers and purely social log ins and daily dice chuckers)
2. Considered inactive after one day instead of 30 days for guild purposes (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.
4. Modified formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum one) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).

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."[/QUOTE]

shorted to just the actual system


AGAIN! I DARE YOU!
Now before flaming I dare you to do the math after counting the number of members that logged into your guild during the last twenty-four hours and dividing by 3(to find actual accounts and to eliminate those who just checked mail auctions daily dice or do non-guild renown earning activities). Kindly post the work.

Kindly don't respond without doing this:

I will go first - 15 characters logged into my level 56 guild during the last 24 hours. Divide by 3 and get 5 (which also just happens to be the actual accounts that logged in during the last twenty-four hours (but at least one didn't earn renown)). 5 times 56 times 2.5 equals 700 decay, which is down from the existing 3688 decay the guild I belong to is going to experience today. That goes from nearly 740 decay per account to 140 decay per account. Totally reasonable. And any level 56 guild will find they have the same decay per renown earning account. Unbiased.

I am confident that most who do the math will find their decay goes down, and only a couple will find their decay goes up but only by a small amount.

Anyone who doesn't do the math and show their math shouldn't post. Here is your chance to prove us wrong.

postscript there are 16 total accounts in the guild I belong to.

[Veriden]

Solution

guild UI
-> Turn off decay


No math...math is hard. And I keep leveling cities when I hit the /0 keys...

[Tychagara]

Solution

guild UI
-> Turn off decay


No math...math is hard. And I keep leveling cities when I hit the /0 keys...

Already has been kicked to death by everyone, and is included in what I just posted. If Turbine was willing to remove decay they would have done it already. They obviously aren't. So let's get back to making decay fair for ALL guilds.

[Gremmlynn]

Then go play it and come back when decay goes away. And how about your math? Come on show it! Or should I come to your server as well and join your guild (probably the same one) and show how the system would work (well) for your guild as well.

Sure come to Wayfinder and ask any member of "Knights of Power" for an invite. As most are officers and anyone who asks is tossed an invite, it shouldn't be a problem getting in. Though if you don't plan on actually playing with us, it would be nice if you quit guild or delete the character when you are done.

Frankly, I don't care how well the system would work for my guild nearly as much as how well it works for the most casual member thereof or how it doesn't give the most active active member a reason to leave. As far as I'm concerned, the game would be better off if they had never added the system in the first place as then guilds would never have to change their identity or suffer consequences due to it. As far as I'm concerned the only positive thing it has added is the recent change that gives regular players an incentive to interact more closely with occasional players.

[Gremmlynn]

a. basic law of computers - databases take resources and clutter and fragmentation are bad. common sense.

Basic law of common sense- if this is a valid issue, the devs would be in a better posision to deal with it than players trying to incorporate it into a guild leveling system. Simply by deleting any guild with no members and archiving any guild if it's been totally inactive for however long their data indicate is best would seem much simpler solutions than keeping track of their decay and not doing so until such time as they have completely deleveled.

There is absolutely zero reason why fixing this supposed problem would have to have anything at all to do with level guild leveling system and it certainly is not a valid reason for why guilds need to delevel. They can archive a level 100 guild as easily as a level 1 guild and if this is such a huge problem it would actually be more efficient to immediately deal with any guild that meets inactivity the criteria for disbanding/archiving regardless of what level it is.

So, how exactly do database issues in any way have anything to do with the guild leveling system?

[eris2323]

Basic law of common sense- if this is a valid issue, the devs would be in a better posision to deal with it than players trying to incorporate it into a guild leveling system. Simply by deleting any guild with no members and archiving any guild if it's been totally inactive for however long their data indicate is best would seem much simpler solutions than keeping track of their decay and not doing so until such time as they have completely deleveled.

There is absolutely zero reason why fixing this supposed problem would have to have anything at all to do with level guild leveling system and it certainly is not a valid reason for why guilds need to delevel. They can archive a level 100 guild as easily as a level 1 guild and if this is such a huge problem it would actually be more efficient to immediately deal with any guild that meets inactivity the criteria for disbanding/archiving regardless of what level it is.

So, how exactly do database issues in any way have anything to do with the guild leveling system?

He is just using yet more unproven assumptions to push his ideas.

Same as usual.

He wants to punish guilds that don't play enough by having their guild taken away; I suspect (from some earlier comments) that people simply want to take a name that has already been taken, and are sad they were not there early enough.

Most of his plan is totally self-serving, as has been pointed out numerous times; it will help his tiny and small guild immensely while placing the renown decay and 'casual debt' back onto the large guilds.

Not interested in this spammed garbage system, still.

Turbine: Stealing a guild because they do not play enough for this persons standards is evil, and theft.

I'd want every single turbine point back.

And I'd be loud about it; here, on twitter, on facebook, and everywhere else.

Don't steal from me; if you want me to buy something, I might - but NEVER will I buy something and then just let you STEAL it away.

Please keep that in mind.

[Tshober]

I hate to say it, but I like UurlockYgmeov's plan.

His plan would be okay if he would add just one very small (by his own calculations) change. All that needs to be done to make his plan non-discriminatory is to add the following restriction:

"The plan will ensure that no account will ever cost a guild more renown through decay than that same account earns."


This does not eliminate decay. You can still lose all of the renown you earned, all the way down to zero. It just makes sure that you can never lose more renown than you earn. You can never earn less than zero net renown. There will still be decay, but there will be NO incentive for guilds to get rid of players who cost more in decay than they earn in renown. This is a huge improvement on Uur's plan at a very small (by his own math) additional reduction in decay. I have asked Uur to add this to his plan twice and he has rejected it both times because he feels very strongly that guilds MUST be allowed to stagnate and lose levels. I wonder which guilds those will be?

However, Uur is not the devs. The devs may not feel at all that guilds MUST be allowed to stagnate and lose levels. So I propose that, if totally eliminating decay is not on the table and if a system like Uur's is the only option, then please add the above provision that would eliminate all discrimination due to decay.

[Viisari]

Devs still trying to keep up with this thread.

Seeing what a cluster**** it's become I assume they're mostly just trying and ending up very confused

[MnaSidhe]

Wow lots of pages.
Anyone suggested scrapping Guild Renown and Ship buffs completely?

[Tshober]

Wow lots of pages.
Anyone suggested scrapping Guild Renown and Ship buffs completely?

Yes, it has been suggested a few times, both with and without keeping the buffs. And, I for one, would prefer that to going back to the old decay system. But since the current decay system is much better and can be easily improved upon, I don't support that idea.

[Gremmlynn]

His plan would be okay if he would add just one very small (by his own calculations) change. All that needs to be done to make his plan non-discriminatory is to add the following restriction:

"The plan will ensure that no account will ever cost a guild more renown through decay than that same account earns."


This does not eliminate decay. You can still lose all of the renown you earned, all the way down to zero. It just makes sure that you can never lose more renown than you earn. You can never earn less than zero net renown. There will still be decay, but there will be NO incentive for guilds to get rid of players who cost more in decay than they earn in renown. This is a huge improvement on Uur's plan at a very small (by his own math) additional reduction in decay. I have asked Uur to add this to his plan twice and he has rejected it both times because he feels very strongly that guilds MUST be allowed to stagnate and lose levels. I wonder which guilds those will be?

However, Uur is not the devs. The devs may not feel at all that guilds MUST be allowed to stagnate and lose levels. So I propose that, if totally eliminating decay is not on the table and if a system like Uur's is the only option, then please add the above provision that would eliminate all discrimination due to decay.

Even were that added I wouldn't like his plan, because it relies on the unlikely premise that the devs accept his values. If they were to implement it, likely just in part, I could easily see the max decay/member be much larger in their final version and we are back to something like what we used to have.

I'd much rather see them concentrate on decay relief for small guilds then do an overhaul of the whole system that has to much potential to create new problems.

Edit: Looking at his plan again, I could see the devs using it as a template to:

Point1: No, to much record keeping, especially making it "only accounts that earn renown".

Point 2: Heh, maybe but see 1 week more likely than 1 day.

Point 3: Could go either way or something between 1 and 10 or something along the lines of the lesser of 10 or = to however many active accounts the guild has. I also doubt they would go below 6 for guild size.

Point 4:Change the 2.5 in the formula to something like 100.

[Tshober]

Even were that added I wouldn't like his plan, because it relies on the unlikely premise that the devs accept his values. If they were to implement it, likely just in part, I could easily see the max decay/member be much larger in their final version and we are back to something like what we used to have.

I'd much rather see them concentrate on decay relief for small guilds then do an overhaul of the whole system that has to much potential to create new problems.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Moving back toward the old system of more decay for every guild member is very low on my list of good options. I am just trying to cover the possibility that the devs might go in that direction, despite the almost unanimous agreement here that eliminating decay would be the preferred solution.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I hate to say it, but I like UurlockYgmeov's plan.

Honestly though after the first 100 pages of small guild bashing(1 or 2 exceptions noted), did you think small guilds would give up? I certainly did, and we haven't seen Slarden (early champion of small guilds) post in months.

However- there are MANY small guilds.
With the age of this game, and the upcoming competing titles, I think many large guilds will find themselves facing small guild math- and then there will be a reckoning.

Glad you guys are taking up the fight. (errr discussion, that is)

Thank you!

[UurlockYgmeov]

Edit: Looking at his plan again, I could see the devs using it as a template to:

Point1: No, to much record keeping, especially making it "only accounts that earn renown".

Point 2: Heh, maybe but see 1 week more likely than 1 day.

Point 3: Could go either way or something between 1 and 10 or something along the lines of the lesser of 10 or = to however many active accounts the guild has. I also doubt they would go below 6 for guild size.

Point 4:Change the 2.5 in the formula to something like 100.

point 1 - everything for core system already in place.
point 2 - even 1 week is much better than a day, however with turbine pushing for maximum daily logins, one day is clearly in their favor.
point 3 - clearly need to be fair - so 1 is the minimum.
point 5 - the existing formula is based on similar math - but scales to 4. I can see them doing something like 1.9 + (modifiedguildsize/100) so would scale from 2 to 3ish (1000 character hard cap so at most 1000 - but probably much less). Even this is much less than existing for the largest guilds.

[UurlockYgmeov]

So, how exactly do database issues in any way have anything to do with the guild leveling system?

This thread deals with guild renown changes. Renown is guilds. Dead guilds affect live servers. Live servers with issues caused by dead guilds are bad for us and bad for business.

Is included in part of the proposal that includes suggestions that help the guilds in general.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Why? From what I've seen my plan is superior as it addresses the specific issue without having a negative effect, that it needs to be adjusted for, on other parts of the system. His system tries to compare apples and oranges and make a system that is "fair" for both. Better to concede that apples can't be compared to oranges and make a system that's workable for both. Especially as, in this case, we are dealing with an entire fruit salad.

Actually - you idea is just to patch the existing temporary patch and not even patch it all the way. The smallest guilds get no relief.

At level 100 - the smallest guilds would still have 33,750 decay per day.

Suggestion was a good try - but still fail on being fair to all.

Let's fix it once and for all - if Turbine keeps decay then Tychagara's proposal is still best (so far).

[UurlockYgmeov]

Sure come to Wayfinder and ask any member of "Knights of Power" for an invite. As most are officers and anyone who asks is tossed an invite, it shouldn't be a problem getting in. Though if you don't plan on actually playing with us, it would be nice if you quit guild or delete the character when you are done.

Still - why don't you do just that simple request and answer his challenge and post the math?

[Gremmlynn]

point 1 - everything for core system already in place.

How do you know it links having earned renown to having logged in?

point 2 - even 1 week is much better than a day, however with turbine pushing for maximum daily logins, one day is clearly in their favor.

Not so sure about that, it would seem more likely to "punish" guilds by counting players who don't log in for decay and size bonuses would be more in their favor than giving those who don't log in a pass. That would be why the system came out with a 1 month decay timer it would seem.

point 3 - clearly need to be fair - so 1 is the minimum.

It only needs to be fair for 5 or fewer player guilds if they choose to make it fair for them. I really doubt they will ever try to make it fair for 1 player "guilds" and think 6 is the min size they feel comfortable with due to the way size bonuses are set up.

point 5 - the existing formula is based on similar math - but scales to 4. I can see them doing something like 1.9 + (modifiedguildsize/100) so would scale from 2 to 3ish (1000 character hard cap so at most 1000 - but probably much less). Even this is much less than existing for the largest guilds.

you miss my point. I see them deciding that sizexlevelx100 to be more in line with what they are comfortable with than sizexlevelx2.5, add to that players counting for longer than just the one day they log in (or maybe play) and it gets us back where we started at.

[Charononus]

Still - why don't you do just that simple request and answer his challenge and post the math?

Because you are using math to obscure social and psychological issues. Perception is greater than reality in this case. Even if the system would help 100% of people which you acknowledge it won't. If people believe casuals and new players are unwelcome they become so and Turbine looses money.