Guild Renown Changes

[Nestroy]

On the grounds that I have stated many times. Using averages per player is not the proper way to compare guilds. The proper way to compare guilds on renown is to compare total renown earned by each guild. (...)

Why not? At least the average renown needed to combat decay for any guild, in absolute terms and per capita, would be an immediate measure for the fairness and transparency of any system. We do not need leaderboards in that regard, there you are perfectly right.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I wonder who updated ddowiki.com to the new formula?

:P

[UurlockYgmeov]

So would simply removing the bias added with the guild size renown bonuses without effecting any guilds than those with an incentive to boot.

no - two seperate issues.

the inherent bias and issue is decay in general - there is no way a medium guild progresses past 80 and a small guild past 70 under this or the previous system. Not without having to boot and/or change who are members.

[Gremmlynn]

The more large guilds = the less pugs = slow death of the game (imho)

I believe the reverse. The more large guilds=the less need to pug=the better overall grouping experience=the healthier the game.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Why not? At least the average renown needed to combat decay for any guild, in absolute terms and per capita, would be an immediate measure for the fairness and transparency of any system. We do not need leaderboards in that regard, there you are perfectly right.

that player will imho never get it. In order to compare anything - you need a common denominator. When it comes to comparing guilds - it is renown per member.

As far a needing leaderboard - not needed - but many want, and if players want to be able to compare/compete they should be able to.

Am done fighting with small guild haters. The system presented isn't perfect, but it is far more perfect and fair and unbiased and simple than anything so far (save no decay - which is also presented in the system).

[Tshober]

Why not? At least the average renown needed to combat decay for any guild, in absolute terms and per capita, would be an immediate measure for the fairness and transparency of any system. We do not need leaderboards in that regard, there you are perfectly right.

Because using averages hides which guilds actually earned more renown. It makes a 1-man guild look exactly the same as a 300-man guild, when in reality they are not even remotely the same. It makes the renown earned by each member of the 300-man guild worth 300 times less than the renown earned by the 1-man solo guild dude. Each member of the 300-man guild worked just as hard and took just as much time to earn their renown as the solo guy did, but the solo guy's renown counts 300 times as much toward leveling up his guild, and that is WITHOUT counting small guild bonuses. The only proper way to compare guilds on renown is by total renown earned by each guild. When you divide by the number of players you are no longer comparing guilds, you are comparing players. If this were a player leveling system, that would be okay, but it is not. It is a guild leveling system so we need to be careful that we are comparing guilds and not comparing players.

If your argument is that a 1-man guild and a 300-man guild are exactly the same and should not be treated any differently at all, then we very much disagree. If that is the case, where is the incentive for players to work together? We would all be just as well off to go it alone and not have guilds at all. Might as well just give everyone a personal airship and their own personal buffs. In a healthy MMO, there should be advantages to working together with other players to achieve common goals.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I believe the reverse. The more large guilds=the less need to pug=the better overall grouping experience=the healthier the game.

Both are not true.

PUG's are part of the game. I know people in large and small guilds that PUG all the time outside their guilds.

However, because of a lack of effective recruiting tools (guild information kiosk, in-game guild management tools) there are lots of small - low level guilds being created. I see them all the time in Korthos, harbor, and marketplace. I see players asking for guilds all the time in the same places. Usually these are also the new players (because of the questions being asked (how do I add spells etc)).

Health of the game is a healthy guild system that is unbiased to all guilds from one account to max accounts; with easy to use guild information methods and guild management tools including an optional provisional guild invitation system.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I sincerely hope I am wrong, but for some reason I feel we small guilds are being 1984'd by the Ministry of Truth (aka Large Guilds)
It's not that I don't trust large guilds. I just don't trust large guilds.

I don't believe it is a cabal - but active conspiracy of deliberate spin and obfuscation is quite possible due to willful ignorance.

Heck, I've been called insane and mentally deficient and even told that english can't be my first language (paraphrased from a private message).

Best course is to get the word out to small guilds - to get them to have their membership to just come into this thread (even just once) at least once a week (use the ingame browser (control-d)) and post their support for small guilds and hopefully read through Tychagara's version of my proposal.

Just get the small guild members to show their support and flood the small guild haters to the back of the swamp.

[UurlockYgmeov]

That said, even if this were the case, the devs are free to "decommission" any airships they find are causing the problem without having to tie it to a guild leveling system. Why add the needless complication of complying to extra conditions when they can set up an independent system to handle the problem better?

It is a separate system - one that uses decay to clean up the dead guilds. One cannot just delete a guild's ship (especially with one paid for with Astral Diamonds or Astral Shards) without just cause.

This idea of being able to remove dead guilds (after effectively about a minimum of 6 months) is simple, and easy to code but not tied into the decay.

Renown Decay and guild leveling and dead guild removal are three different things that are related but not the same.

[Gremmlynn]

Well noted. I will post exactly your comment now next time the pendulum swings against large guilds again and they are complaining again. And happy will be this day.

There are several possible sytems and most of them suggested into detail in here already that would both be fair for all guild sizes and enable Turbine to go along with sales. The current system is not, take it any way you want.

Large guilds aren't the focus of my concern. While I prefer them simply because it's nice to actually have enough people to play with when I log on, to each their own as far as that goes. My concern is to ensure, I and those like me actually have those people to play with when we log on.

Also, I proposed a system myself that would cut small guild decay up to 10 fold. The best part is that it actually is fair as it doesn't increase decay for anyone in the process. While I would prefer to see decay removed, I'm fine with anything that doesn't encourage enforcing any sort of game play standards. Those are for guilds to decide on their own, not to fit in with game mechanics.

[Nestroy]

Because using averages hides which guilds actually earned more renown. It makes a 1-man guild look exactly the same as a 300-man guild, when in reality they are not even remotely the same. It makes the renown earned by each member of the 300-man guild worth 300 times less than the renown earned by the 1-man solo guild dude. Each member of the 300-man guild worked just as hard and took just as much time to earn their renown as the solo guy did, but the solo guy's renown counts 300 times as much toward leveling up his guild, and that is WITHOUT counting small guild bonuses. The only proper way to compare guilds on renown is total renown earned by each guild. When you divide by the number of players you are no longer comparing guilds, you are comparing players. If this were a player leveling system, that would be okay, but it is not. It is a guild leveling system so we need to be careful that we are comparing guilds and not comparing players.

If your argument is that a 1-man guild and a 300-man guild are exactly the same and should not be treated any differently at all, then we very much disagree. If that is the case, where is the incentive for players to work together? We would all be just as well off to go it alone and not have guilds at all. Might as well just give everyone a personal airship and their own personal buffs.

Sometimes I think I am arguing with somebody from anther star. Ok,

1.) If the one soloist earns 300 times the renown the 300 guys together earn, they in absolute numbers would earn the exactly same renown. But the one guy would earn 300 times the renown on average the 300 guys would bring in. So what? it only would show that the one guy is 300 times as effective in earning renown as the average member of the 300 guys guild. And the conclusion? It does not add anything to the discussion here and was never ever part of the discussion here. We are talking about renown needed to do something or to combat decay, not about renown earned.

2.) I am arguing to compare needed renown, not earned renown. I need a certain amount of renown to combat decay and advance in level. This amount needed can be broken down to the per capita needed renown. And this is the best argument against renown decay in General and the current System in Special. Because the current system forces small guilds to bring in a much higher per capita renown to combat decay than it does for the larger guilds. This still does not tell me anything about what the guilds compared are able to generate for renown. And frankly, I could not care less about the potential gain. I am only interested in what is levied upon any given member in a) a guild of 6, b) a guild of 20, c) a guild of 100 and d) a guild of 500. And there I see - given same Levels of decay, that guilds of 6 have a proportionally much higher per capita decay than guilds of 500 members. And that´s what I am complaining as unfair.

3.) This still gives the larger guilds the edge in mathematics - even a marginally contributing member in a larger guild helps. In a smaller guild even without renown decay the marginally contributing member might be a liability by hampering the bonus gained by the other mebers of the guild. And any larger guild has a much higher potential renown gain than any small guild ever will have - except the devs would even out this with much higher bonus and a much longer bonus eligible member range (with marginal bonus even in the 200s of members). But this is not the topic at the moment, even if there have been suggestions for mending this as well.

So I really cannot understand your concens and arguments here! We are talking about decay, not potential gains.

[Nestroy]

Large guilds aren't the focus of my concern. While I prefer them simply because it's nice to actually have enough people to play with when I log on, to each their own as far as that goes. My concern is to ensure, I and those like me actually have those people to play with when we log on.

Also, I proposed a system myself that would cut small guild decay up to 10 fold. The best part is that it actually is fair as it doesn't increase decay for anyone in the process. While I would prefer to see decay removed, I'm fine with anything that doesn't encourage enforcing any sort of game play standards. Those are for guilds to decide on their own, not to fit in with game mechanics.

I can fully concur with what you posted up here, actually.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Large guilds aren't the focus of my concern. While I prefer them simply because it's nice to actually have enough people to play with when I log on, to each their own as far as that goes. My concern is to ensure, I and those like me actually have those people to play with when we log on.

Also, I proposed a system myself that would cut small guild decay up to 10 fold. The best part is that it actually is fair as it doesn't increase decay for anyone in the process. While I would prefer to see decay removed, I'm fine with anything that doesn't encourage enforcing any sort of game play standards. Those are for guilds to decide on their own, not to fit in with game mechanics.

My system eliminates guild bias and booting because of play style and frequency from the system completely. Guilds will still (can and should) boot for any reason as long as it complies with the EULA.

The suggestion you forwarded was well intentioned, but from the charts posted not good enough. You also flatly refused to make it help the one account guilds as well. So on both accounts the system was not good enough.

The system I proposed and streamlined by Tychagara (thank you) does just that. Now include the other items like optional provisional guild invitations, guild information system (to allow assist players to choose a good fit guild (especially now with the demise of the compendium) and better guild management tools, better friends list, brings the entire guild experience to a whole new better level that will promote guild play and help the game itself prosper.

The proposal doesn't make anyone play a certain way not does it promote any style or method either, but does make the decay (membership dues) fair for all guilds of all sizes.

[Gremmlynn]

no - two seperate issues.

the inherent bias and issue is decay in general - there is no way a medium guild progresses past 80 and a small guild past 70 under this or the previous system. Not without having to boot and/or change who are members.

Except that pretty much every level 100 guild under the previous system was small? Apparently there was a way.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Sometimes I think I am arguing with somebody from anther star. Ok,
So I really cannot understand your concens and arguments here! We are talking about decay, not potential gains.

I concur. But the only universal language is math - and seemingly this imaginary person from another planet cannot comprehend math.

Decay is a separate issue from gains.

Renown decay is more like guild membership dues - paid by the guild as a whole instead of the individual members; but is based upon membership numbers.

[Tshober]

I sincerely hope I am wrong, but for some reason I feel we small guilds are being 1984'd by the Ministry of Truth (aka Large Guilds)
It's not that I don't trust large guilds. I just don't trust large guilds.

I'm sorry, but it is not the large guilds saying it. It's the devs saying it. I provided the links for you to the devs' statements in this thread. And what the devs say matches exactly with what I found on ddowiki. How you can blame large guilds for that is pretty hard to see. I don't deny that small guilds should get more relief from decay. I am strongly in favor of eliminating decay entirely for every guild. But small guilds were not hurt with more decay by the change that was made. That is a thoroughly busted myth that just keeps refusing to die.

[Nestroy]

Except that pretty much every level 100 guild under the previous system was small? Apparently there was a way.

Well, at least you have to admit that only a very small minority of all guilds had the will and the energy (money, time) to contribute enough renown to get to the absolute top.

Now in the new System any guild willing to grow large can reach the top by sheer and overwhelming size alone. So instead of investing much time, energy and even money, all I have to do is to lure new members.

At least most of the current on-top large guilds were large before the change - they finally harvest the fruits of their Longstanding work now.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Except that pretty much every level 100 guild under the previous system was small? Apparently there was a way.

I can't say because my.ddo.com is broken. :P

yes - boot any and all casual player. still is that way.

Temporary change was well intentioned but limited because it was what they could do without bringing down the servers.

It was a three step plan:

1. kludge to help as much as possible without causing uproar by bringing down servers;
2. create thread and allow for healthy debate and idea generation (and bring the popcorn)
3. implement / code then test on Lamannia (which won't help much because guilds on lamannia are just plain different) then bring live.

what we need is a proposal like the one we are sponsoring that will resolve 99.9% of the issues with the current and previous systems. One that is fair to all guilds and all players - and mine is. One that doesn't force guilds to choose who they want in the guilds because of the system, and one that allows players to play with who they want in their guild. My proposal does.

[Gremmlynn]

Both are not true.

PUG's are part of the game. I know people in large and small guilds that PUG all the time outside their guilds.

However, because of a lack of effective recruiting tools (guild information kiosk, in-game guild management tools) there are lots of small - low level guilds being created. I see them all the time in Korthos, harbor, and marketplace. I see players asking for guilds all the time in the same places. Usually these are also the new players (because of the questions being asked (how do I add spells etc)).

Health of the game is a healthy guild system that is unbiased to all guilds from one account to max accounts; with easy to use guild information methods and guild management tools including an optional provisional guild invitation system.

How do one account "guilds" make the game more healthy? Personally I see making the system unbiased against one man guilds about as far from making the game healthy as you can get as the only reason anyone would ever want to guild with another is to speed their own advancement by slowing the other players. The bias promotes cooperation by making the whole at least equal to the sum of the parts, not equal to the average of the parts as you want.

Also, when is a guild invitation ever not provisional?

[UurlockYgmeov]

How do one account "guilds" make the game more healthy? Personally I see making the system unbiased against one man guilds about as far from making the game healthy as you can get as the only reason anyone would ever want to guild with another is to speed their own advancement by slowing the other players. The bias promotes cooperation by making the whole at least equal to the sum of the parts, not equal to the average of the parts as you want.

Also, when is a guild invitation ever not provisional?

Provisional as in not affecting renown in any shape during provisional period. also should not allow access to any guild chest(s) during that period.

It takes more effort to bias the game against one account guilds than it does to eliminate that bias.

Plus - all guilds started with just one account. That one account pays the real money for the charter, for gold seal amenities, for gold seal ships... and pays the plat-sink for the ships/amenities etc. If they want a one account guild - then so be it - who are you do tell them they can't by slanting the decay system against them?

You don't have to 'get it' - it isn't your thing. Not mine thing either. the system just needs to allow it so it can be fair. Otherwise just make it a rule - no one account guilds ever... don't discriminate and the game will be healthier for it.

One account guilds might be rare but they do exist and they aren't unhealthy. Only discrimination and bias is unhealthy.