Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

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.

First I wouldn't suggest deleting anyone's ship (guilds with no members sure as that is only possible if every member is either kicked, deleted or quits the guild as DDO never deletes inactive accounts/characters). Archiving sure, after not being used for whatever period of time the devs find works best for them. Basically based on how much effort it takes to bring it back out of mothballs when a member of the guild logs on. I also see no reason they would want to base this on a guilds level rather than set standard. Why keep level a 100 guild's ship in the system longer than whatever standard works best for them, or a level 15 guild's ship less time than is most efficient for them to pull them back out if someone logs on.

That's just system maintenance that should be set for whatever for whatever works best for the system.

[UurlockYgmeov]

First I would suggest deleting anyone's ship (guilds with no members sure as that is only possible if every member is either kicked, deleted or quits the guild as DDO never deletes inactive accounts/characters). Archiving sure, after not being used for whatever period of time the devs find works best for them. Basically based on how much effort it takes to bring it back out of mothballs when a member of the guild logs on. I also see no reason they would want to base this on a guilds level rather than set standard. Why keep level a 100 guild's ship in the system longer than whatever standard works best for them, or a level 15 guild's ship less time than is most efficient for them to pull them back out if someone logs on.

That's just system maintenance that should be set for whatever for whatever works best for the system.

the more effort put into getting a guild higher in advancement should mean the longer grace period before mothballing. hence the suggestion allows for that.

And agree - what is best for the system as long as it is healthy and fair for the players - but there does need to be something like this.

[Nestroy]

the more effort put into getting a guild higher in advancement should mean the longer grace period before mothballing. hence the suggestion allows for that.

And agree - what is best for the system as long as it is healthy and fair for the players - but there does need to be something like this.

The big IF still remains: Only if this helps to free the servers / repopulating ships after downtimes / get less lag. Otherwise there are many more important things to do for devs.

[UurlockYgmeov]

The big IF still remains: Only if this helps to free the servers / repopulating ships after downtimes / get less lag. Otherwise there are many more important things to do for devs.

I agree - just was related to current topic and so included in proposal under optional but nice.

[Gremmlynn]

the more effort put into getting a guild higher in advancement should mean the longer grace period before mothballing. hence the suggestion allows for that.

And agree - what is best for the system as long as it is healthy and fair for the players - but there does need to be something like this.

What difference would a grace period make? Either the ship gets immediately recommissioned when the first member logs the same way archived characters are in or it shouldn't be done at all.

This shouldn't be to tough as I would assume the inactivity period before mothballing would be longer than the maximum duration for amenities. So just need to keep track of ship type and generate one if a member logs in.

[UurlockYgmeov]

What difference would a grace period make? Either the ship gets immediately recommissioned when the first member logs the same way archived characters are in or it shouldn't be done at all.

This shouldn't be to tough as I would assume the inactivity period before mothballing would be longer than the maximum duration for amenities. So just need to keep track of ship type and generate one if a member logs in.

grace period to keep the whining down. :P

no, actually - either would work. whichever works best - just is needed.

[Tshober]

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.

I agree that small guilds are incurring too much decay now. That should be fixed. I have never said otherwise. I don't know how we got off on this tangent that is completely unrelated to what I was discussing. The point I was making is that under the current system no guild of any size can ever get increased decay from adding a new member. That was not the case in the old system and would also be untrue in Uur's proposed system.

[Nestroy]

This confirms that you are not comparing guilds at all and only comparing players. Essentially you are saying that it is unfair that 300 people all working together can earn more renown than one person alone can earn in the same amount of time and that the only way to make it fair is to hold back the 300 people so that they are no better at earning renown than the solo guy. If that is your definition of unfair, then we will never agree on what is fair.

I agree that small guilds are incurring too much decay now. That should be fixed. But using averages per player to try to equate guilds of all sizes is not fair. It ignores the very real differences between guilds of vastly different sizes.

Au contraire - the sheer number of possibly contributing members from large guilds would remain under any proposal from me - and I still think you are mistaking me somehwhat! I do not speak about renown gained, but about renown decay per member. If a big guild gains 300k and a small guild gains 3k, this does not interest me at all. This is a complete logical result of the sheer size of a larger guild. What I do talk about: I wiant the same (low) decay per capita for small guilds that the large guilds now have. If the corresponding decay number was calculated after the 300 member guilds, the standard per capita decay would be current decay per guild / 300. Now multiply by let´s say 10 active mebers and here we go. I do not want a large guild to again get the same decay per capita as a small guild. I want the small guild to get the same per capita decay as a large guild!

Eg. the current decay would be 6k. Per capita this would be 20 renown per capita for a 300 members guild and 1000 renown per capita for a 6 members guild. Now, we set the per capita renown decay from the 300 members guild for all guilds. So 20 renown decay for any member from a given guild. This would translate into 120 renown decay for the 6 members guild, 200 decay for the 10 members guild, 2000 decay for the 100 members guild and 300 members would have 5000 decay. There would be a per member fee for playing instead a per guild fee. And the per member fee would be very moderate indeed.

In extremo there would be 30k for the lv. 100 guild @ 300 members = 100 renown / day per capita - 600 for 6 members, 1000 for 10 members, 10000 for 100 members - we are talking about a fee of 2 heroic deeds / day for any member at Level 100 - and this would be the max needed in my proposed system. Most guilds would Need years (and many years) anyway to even reahc the higher Levels, even without any decay. So there still is an overwhelming advantage for the large guilds in gaining renown and leveling.

[Gremmlynn]

grace period to keep the whining down. :P

If they did it right, there simply wouldn't be any whining as nobody would even be able to tell it was ever gone.

[Charononus]

Au contraire - the sheer number of possibly contributing members from large guilds would remain under any proposal from me - and I still think you are mistaking me somehwhat! I do not speak about renown gained, but about renown decay per member. If a big guild gains 300k and a small guild gains 3k, this does not interest me at all. This is a complete logical result of the sheer size of a larger guild. What I do talk about: I wiant the same (low) decay per capita for small guilds that the large guilds now have. If the corresponding decay number was calculated after the 300 member guilds, the standard per capita decay would be current decay per guild / 300. Now multiply by let´s say 10 active mebers and here we go. I do not want a large guild to again get the same decay per capita as a small guild. I want the small guild to get the same per capita decay as a large guild!

Eg. the current decay would be 6k. Per capita this would be 20 renown per capita for a 300 members guild and 1000 renown per capita for a 6 members guild. Now, we set the per capita renown decay from the 300 members guild for all guilds. So 20 renown decay for any member from a given guild. This would translate into 120 renown decay for the 6 members guild, 200 decay for the 10 members guild, 2000 decay for the 100 members guild and 300 members would have 5000 decay. There would be a per member fee for playing instead a per guild fee. And the per member fee would be very moderate indeed.

In extremo there would be 30k for the lv. 100 guild @ 300 members = 100 renown / day per capita - 600 for 6 members, 1000 for 10 members, 10000 for 100 members - we are talking about a fee of 2 heroic deeds / day for any member at Level 100 - and this would be the max needed in my proposed system. Most guilds would Need years (and many years) anyway to even reahc the higher Levels, even without any decay. So there still is an overwhelming advantage for the large guilds in gaining renown and leveling.

But there is a way to earn less renown than you cost with such a system and that is why it needs to be avoided. Guilds need to be able to accept casual players or it hurts the game. The old decay system and the proposed decay system of Uur is part of why ddo has a bad rep as new player / casual unfriendly and elitist. That needs to change if this game is to continue or even grow.

[Tshober]

Au contraire - the sheer number of possibly contributing members from large guilds would remain under any proposal from me - and I still think you are mistaking me somehwhat! I do not speak about renown gained, but about renown decay per member. If a big guild gains 300k and a small guild gains 3k, this does not interest me at all. This is a complete logical result of the sheer size of a larger guild. What I do talk about: I wiant the same (low) decay per capita for small guilds that the large guilds now have. If the corresponding decay number was calculated after the 300 member guilds, the standard per capita decay would be current decay per guild / 300. Now multiply by let´s say 10 active mebers and here we go. I do not want a large guild to again get the same decay per capita as a small guild. I want the small guild to get the same per capita decay as a large guild!

Eg. the current decay would be 6k. Per capita this would be 20 renown per capita for a 300 members guild and 1000 renown per capita for a 6 members guild. Now, we set the per capita renown decay from the 300 members guild for all guilds. So 20 renown decay for any member from a given guild. This would translate into 120 renown decay for the 6 members guild, 200 decay for the 10 members guild, 2000 decay for the 100 members guild and 300 members would have 5000 decay. There would be a per member fee for playing instead a per guild fee. And the per member fee would be very moderate indeed.

In extremo there would be 30k for the lv. 100 guild @ 300 members = 100 renown / day per capita - 600 for 6 members, 1000 for 10 members, 10000 for 100 members - we are talking about a fee of 2 heroic deeds / day for any member at Level 100 - and this would be the max needed in my proposed system. Most guilds would Need years (and many years) anyway to even reahc the higher Levels, even without any decay. So there still is an overwhelming advantage for the large guilds in gaining renown and leveling.

I'm sorry but we should not even be discussing incentives to boot players that arise only because of the small guild bonuses. I don't want to get rid of small guild bonuses. Neither do you. Nor does anyone on the small guild side of this debate. So to point to those incentives and say "see, that proves the current system is bad" is just silly. If you removed the small guild bonuses from the current system, every single incentive to ever boot a low renown earner disappears completely for every guild of any size. Do the same under the old system or under Uur's plan and it WILL NOT disappear. It will still be there because both of those plans add more decay for every player in your guild. That is the difference.

For small guilds to point to an artifact of a bonus that favors them and that larger guilds can never get and say that the existence of that proves the current system is just as bad is not only inaccurate, it is downright comically ironic. The way to address this is to lower decay for small guilds so it is less prevalent. But even if decay were zero it would still exist as long as small guild bonuses exist. The only way I can think of to get rid of it is to eliminate small guild bonuses. So unless we want to advocate getting rid of small guild bonuses, we should not even be discussing it.

Small guilds are incurring too much decay. I have never said otherwise. Let's work on fixing that and not on adding more discrimination back into the system.

[HouseAtreides]

Evidence is experiential - the hour plus it takes to repopulate the ship amenities after a restart shows that the server must cycle through all the guilds - including the dead guilds.

Common sense.

whatisthisidonteven...

Sir, I would kindly point you to the logical fallacy room and hope you have a productive stay there.

[UurlockYgmeov]

If they did it right, there simply wouldn't be any whining as nobody would even be able to tell it was ever gone.

+1 exactly correct! Agree!

[UurlockYgmeov]

Au contraire - the sheer number of possibly contributing members from large guilds would remain under any proposal from me - and I still think you are mistaking me somehwhat! I do not speak about renown gained, but about renown decay per member. If a big guild gains 300k and a small guild gains 3k, this does not interest me at all. This is a complete logical result of the sheer size of a larger guild. What I do talk about: I wiant the same (low) decay per capita for small guilds that the large guilds now have. If the corresponding decay number was calculated after the 300 member guilds, the standard per capita decay would be current decay per guild / 300. Now multiply by let´s say 10 active mebers and here we go. I do not want a large guild to again get the same decay per capita as a small guild. I want the small guild to get the same per capita decay as a large guild!

Eg. the current decay would be 6k. Per capita this would be 20 renown per capita for a 300 members guild and 1000 renown per capita for a 6 members guild. Now, we set the per capita renown decay from the 300 members guild for all guilds. So 20 renown decay for any member from a given guild. This would translate into 120 renown decay for the 6 members guild, 200 decay for the 10 members guild, 2000 decay for the 100 members guild and 300 members would have 5000 decay. There would be a per member fee for playing instead a per guild fee. And the per member fee would be very moderate indeed.

In extremo there would be 30k for the lv. 100 guild @ 300 members = 100 renown / day per capita - 600 for 6 members, 1000 for 10 members, 10000 for 100 members - we are talking about a fee of 2 heroic deeds / day for any member at Level 100 - and this would be the max needed in my proposed system. Most guilds would Need years (and many years) anyway to even reahc the higher Levels, even without any decay. So there still is an overwhelming advantage for the large guilds in gaining renown and leveling.

generating renown and renown decay (membership dues/fees) are two separate things that are related only because they deal with renown and guilds.

and agree

[Nestroy]

But there is a way to earn less renown than you cost with such a system and that is why it needs to be avoided. Guilds need to be able to accept casual players or it hurts the game. The old decay system and the proposed decay system of Uur is part of why ddo has a bad rep as new player / casual unfriendly and elitist. That needs to change if this game is to continue or even grow.

This would be easily mendable with some coding effort, really.

before decay is applied:

Select * from MemberList do if DailyRenown > RenownPerCapitaHit set ActiveMemberCount = 1.

Renown decay is applied to all counting members. And afterwards:

Select * from MemberList set ActiveMemberCount = 0

[UurlockYgmeov]

I cannot agree with that.

that ties earning renown into decay - and makes them inseparable - making it exactly what we don't want.

Decay and earning renown are two seperate things and need to be kept seperate.

on top of that - doing that is just a sly way of trying to eliminate decay - and the dev's will see through it and say no.

However, in the interests of fairness, I will then include it in my proposal - right after 'eliminate decay'.

Tying decay into earning is a really bad idea because it will cause the exclusion that everyone is so bent out of shape trying to avoid - guilds booting players because of decay (or generating or lack thereof of renown).

I don't like decay, but understand its need. It serves a function - and in order to have any meaning it must have teeth. Pulling its teeth and saying it is impossible to loose renown is hard to explain, but like a really bad David Copperfield illusion - but the wires are showing.

I cannot believe that Turbine would say no to eliminating decay altogether and then allow themselves to be duped into eliminating decay because of some trickery.

Lets focus on the two options - eliminate decay (done - we all agree on that) OR a fair system of decay that is fair to all guilds and all play styles. There probably is another option - but it shouldn't be one of the two already or a variation on one of the two.

[Charononus]

This would be easily mendable with some coding effort, really.

before decay is applied:

Select * from MemberList do if DailyRenown > RenownPerCapitaHit set ActiveMemberCount = 1.

Renown decay is applied to all counting members. And afterwards:

Select * from MemberList set ActiveMemberCount = 0

This is perfectly acceptable, and would keep casual players from being in some ways non citizens of the game and imho make it easier to join a guild as a new player. Any system that doesn't have some method of making all players wanted is what I'm fighting against.

[UurlockYgmeov]

My proposal makes it easy for all guilds of all sizes to invite all different playstyles. There is absolutely no pressure to boot - in fact quite the opposite. For guilds that are focused on leveling the guild - the more members the better and the faster the guild will level (as a general rule)

The more members, the more the cost of the amenities and so on can be split. The more fellow guildies to interact with.

Nothing in the proposed system is bad for the game nor bad for casual players.

I know the large guilds will disagree - but that is a knee jerk reaction - especially since the data from the large guild on wayfinder was posted.

Under the proposed system - most guilds will have less decay! The higher level the guild - the less decay as compared to the temporary and previous systems.

In fact basic psychology says that we humans are inclusive social creatures, and unless extreme factors are in play (plague, fear, self-preservation, irrational thought) we will gather into social groups. Something as minor as a membership fee/due paid by the collective as a whole will not deter guilds from inviting; rather the opposite.

Since it is in guilds best interests to have many members of all styles of play - then they will invite and continue to grow until they hit the member cap. My system promotes that because only if a member earns renown do they affect decay, and only for that day.

And they only affect decay by a small amount - 2.5 times the level of the guild. That is a trivial amount of decay - 125 at level 50 - which is like I said trivial.

Continue to disagree - I understand your point of view, but believe that membership dues need to be assigned in a way that can cause a guild to loose a minor amount of renown through decay because of atrophy/neglect/etc.

Does this make me a bad person? Rather the opposite - because the system is fair and takes into consideration all points of view (including Turbine and the game itself).

Decay is a necessary unpleasantry, like membership dues to a union or gym. We get something in return - which includes the virtual upkeep of the ships / the subsidies to the guild vendors / the bribes to the minstrels to fame the guilds deeds.

[UurlockYgmeov]

forgot to post these:

These use the same math as was used on the wayfinder large guild stats posted shortly ago.

Also note: the 1000 is theoretically possible but will never happen since it would take 1000 accounts; normal practical max is around 300 accounts (300 accounts * 3.33 characters in guild per account). Based upon that all guilds currently experiencing decay will probably see a decline in the amount of membership dues each day (even on peak activity days) (aka decay).



and the break down per member / per captia:

[eris2323]

forgot to post these:

These use the same math as was used on the wayfinder large guild stats posted shortly ago.

More numbers....

I'm aware you are dead set on this idea of yours, and think it will solve the worlds problems.

I do not agree it will, at all - and your numbers are simply blinders to make people 'agree' with you - many look at them, and say omg look how cheap renown will be.

The problem isn't that, the problem is with the attitude of counting the players of a guild, assigning them a decay value, and then judging them based on that.

All you want is for your decay to be reduced by a crazy amount, and you hope that that carrot will be enough to make everyone get in line.

Not gonna happen. Your system is badly made, based on bad assumptions for the game, and has no other use than to help out small guilds, at the expense of larger ones.

Your system also makes bad assumptions and has extra fluff that is not needed in this discussion, such as your plan to destroy peoples guilds if they don't play enough to meet your standards, and you do not get to set my standards of playing.

I personally doubt the devs would ever lower decay that much; if they do, it seems to me it'd make much more sense to just remove it entirely; why code an entirely new system when they could simply turn it off.

The devs, if they change the system, will probably choose their own numbers, and this pie in the sky dream of yours of such cheap renown will be forgotten as they say 'oops'

The devs would be fools to implement this system.

I get that you want small and tiny guilds to be yet again the top of the food chain, and you want everyone to be in small and tiny guilds, but that is not the game I want to play, and you do not get to choose how I play my game, even if you have 2 people who constantly form a cheering squad for you.

Dear devs: We need a system that isn't a transparent attempt to help tiny guilds at the expense of those willing to work together as a team. Please keep that in mind; yes, it's okay to reduce decay for small guilds, but the system doesn't need to be changed so as to hurt large guilds, the ones who have open door policies, and will invite even your newest players to the game, and give them a home.

Simplest solution? Change that decay formula to 6 accounts.

Can be done without even rebooting the servers.... no extra coding time required, so you can get back to the enhancement system updates.