Guild Renown Changes

[Nestroy]

(...)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.

I would back such a move any time, if only on the grounds that such a setting is better than the current decay. But I will still be of the opinion that set decay = zero would be the better solution.

[Tshober]

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.

This would certainly move us in the right direction and, as Eris points out, would be super simple to implement.

[UurlockYgmeov]

am confident that the devs would have set the decay to zero (or accounts to 6) if they wanted zero decay.

since they didn't - fair to presume that decay is not going anywhere, but have included it into proposal.

as far as setting to 6 - still doesn't fix anything, just brushes the problems and favoritism further under the rug. Still is 20250 decay for level 100. just extends large guilds unfair advantage.

If decay continues - needs to be a membership fee/due - as in per capita.

[eris2323]

am confident that the devs would have set the decay to zero (or accounts to 6) if they wanted zero decay.

since they didn't - fair to presume that decay is not going anywhere, but have included it into proposal.

as far as setting to 6 - still doesn't fix anything, just brushes the problems and favoritism further under the rug. Still is 20250 decay for level 100. just extends large guilds unfair advantage.

If decay continues - needs to be a membership fee/due - as in per capita.

It seems like there will always be a perceived 'favoritism' in any system, setting the system to 6 accounts (which is the sweet spot anyways for the small renown bonus) would reduce decay for almost every guild out there, except for a few very tiny and solo guilds.

It requires no extra work; everything is in place, we're ready to go.

The devs have the enhancement system coming, and a huge expansion. They have, quite literally, enough on their plate.

[eris2323]

I would back such a move any time, if only on the grounds that such a setting is better than the current decay. But I will still be of the opinion that set decay = zero would be the better solution.

I'd love it to be zero as well; and who knows, perhaps the devs will agree that renown decay itself was a silly idea in the end

It does seem like want at least a little bit of work required to be level 100, but setting the accounts to 6 would reduce the numbers even further to a place that really should be achievable by almost all guilds.

[Dandonk]

I would back such a move any time, if only on the grounds that such a setting is better than the current decay. But I will still be of the opinion that set decay = zero would be the better solution.

I very much agree with all of this.

Any reduction is decay is good, as it brings us one step closer to getting rid of the silly mechanic.

[Gremmlynn]

I don't like decay, but understand its need. It serves a function - and in order to have any meaning it must have teeth.

What would that function be? Other than separating the good (those who regularly play enough to beat it) from the bad (those who likely don't play at all anymore due to not playing enough to beat it when they did).

[Gremmlynn]

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.

No, they are in no way necessary and we get nothing in return. Those are just virtual things you are making up to justify the existence of decay. Even if they did exist, one would pay them in plat, not renown anyway.

[Charononus]

No, they are in no way necessary and we get nothing in return. Those are just virtual things you are making up to justify the existence of decay. Even if they did exist, one would pay them in plat, not renown anyway.

QFT, Decay is a horrible idea that luckly every other game I've heard of doesn't use them.

[Gremmlynn]

as far as setting to 6 - still doesn't fix anything, just brushes the problems and favoritism further under the rug. Still is 20250 decay for level 100. just extends large guilds unfair advantage.

It's only an advantage if you insist on comparing apples to oranges.

If decay continues - needs to be a membership fee/due - as in per capita.

It in no way needs to be per capita and is better off not being per capita as that eliminates the need to judge the worthiness of every "capita".

Is that "unfair" to smaller guilds? Probably, if it's important to them. But, IMO, with a choice between those it's important to having to play more or recruit more to avoid and those it's important to having to exclude those it's not important to I'll take the former.

The way I see it, you want high guild levels, but you don't want to do what it takes to get them. What you want is for those who are ambivalent about guild levels to change to conform to a system they likely have little interest in in order to retain the benefits from a guild they do want, the social and play aspects.

If it's that important to you simply play enough to beat that decay (I generally more than cover my guilds decay every time I play, without a size bonus) and if other in your guild feel the same way they should do likewise. But don't push the onus for your desires for those levels on anyone in your guild who doesn't desire them enough to do what it takes to get them. That's what per capita does.

[GrimGus]

A Dev just commented.

And dead guilds cause lag and affect the game for all.

I personally don't care about others guilds - but trying to force the small guild haters to show how proposed system would affect them with hard numbers. They either are too lazy to do so or are hidding the fact that what we are proposing works for them. Until they show the math that is just mine (and many others) humble opinion.

not to create some drawn out argument, i just don't see some side comment of "we can't read this fast" as a relevant comment by the devs.

also i have to wonder about your dead guilds cause lag hypothesis, since turbine doesn't clear unused characters. it seams they, like an unused guild, just sit in cyberspace as a saved game. Of course if you have to calc guild decay i guess you could be right. One more reason to be rid of it.

*edit to fix punctuation

[Arnez]

You know a plan I propose? One that takes advantage of that cash cow that is Large Guilds.

Not talking to the Devs here- but a note to the Accounting/Marketing Types:
Making Small guilds buy Guild Renown Potions is chump change compared to what you can get out of Large Guilds.
Just sayin.

Also on a sad note- found out what happened to our earlier champions of small guilds. They mostly gave in to the bullying of the large guilds and merged with other small guilds.

[UurlockYgmeov]

You know a plan I propose? One that takes advantage of that cash cow that is Large Guilds.

Not talking to the Devs here- but a note to the Accounting/Marketing Types:
Making Small guilds buy Guild Renown Potions is chump change compared to what you can get out of Large Guilds.
Just sayin.

Also on a sad note- found out what happened to our earlier champions of small guilds. They mostly gave in to the bullying of the large guilds and merged with other small guilds.

Don't worry - am here until my mentally deficient brain explodes out of being overheated by flaming mephits of troll's demise wearing socks on their hands as potcolders against the coldfire.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Gremmlynn - you often seem to have, in my humble opinion - two different minds - one set posts one way, another mind another way.

In your last couple of posts you have again decided that your way of playing is superior than all others, and therefor only that style should be given a fair shake.

You also completely don't understand my playing style, or of the guild I play in. I have purposely not spoken in details because of the hateful spiteful nature of this thread and how everything imho gets twisted back as a personal aside or slight or snide comment or just plain lies.

I do not play in a single account guild. The current system of decay is worse for the guild I am in than the previous because of the pressure to boot. The current system of decay is only getting worse and worse as the guild I belong to ascends the level ladder. I PUG as much as I play static, and am considered by many a very helpful knowledgeable skillful player. I do not like decay and agree that it would be nice to have it go away; however I understand two major things: the need for decay (what it represents and why) and that Turbine will never agree to its removal. I do believe that membership dues/fees are a good way to explain decay and that like dues/fees - decay needs to be computed based upon an unbiased method - which is per member that has earned renown in the last twenty-four hours.

The information posted from the wayfinder guild (thank you Gremmlynn) demonstrates exactly how my system would benefit all guilds and how with the additional improvements suggested in the full proposal - how all players, all guilds, the game, and turbine would be in a much better place.

Now I don't expect Turbine to change the decay system before the next expansion - so I have dug in with my K-Bar and dictionary and popcorn - my abacus and earplugs.

Small guilds will continue to have a voice that like decay, has teeth.

[Tshober]

The current system of decay is worse for the guild I am in than the previous because of the pressure to boot. The current system of decay is only getting worse and worse as the guild I belong to ascends the level ladder.

It's the myth that will never die! No guild of any size is being hit with even a tiny bit more decay under the current system. None. There is no "pressure to boot" in the current system for any guild of any size that would not have been present in the old system for that same guild. I have posted the formulas from ddowiki to show it. I have posted the links to the devs statements in this thread that confirm it. It does not exist. It is all in your imagination.

Yes, the amount of decay goes up with each guild level. But that is not different from the old system. Yes, small guilds are getting hit with more decay than they should and we should be striving to correct that. But small guilds are NOT being hit with any more decay than they would have under the old system. Please stop with this claim that has been shown to be false over and over again.

[eris2323]

Also on a sad note- found out what happened to our earlier champions of small guilds. They mostly gave in to the bullying of the large guilds and merged with other small guilds.

What you call bullying, I call 'finally understanding how the system works' and working with it, instead of against it.

They saw the light, and will grow because of it!

You should be happy for them.

But instead, you are jealous of them - and it's so easy, easy, easy to fix your problem.

Recruit more. Play more.

Make some friends ingame!

[Dandonk]

What you call bullying, I call 'finally understanding how the system works' and working with it, instead of against it.

They saw the light, and will grow because of it!

You should be happy for them.

But instead, you are jealous of them - and it's so easy, easy, easy to fix your problem.

Recruit more. Play more.

Make some friends ingame!

I don't think the system should tell me who to play with, how many to play with, and how to organize my guild. That's a really, really bad thing, IMO.

It was bad when the system told large guilds to kick or not advance, and it's bad now.

Get rid of decay. It only leads to aggravation.

[eris2323]

I don't think the system should tell me who to play with, how many to play with, and how to organize my guild. That's a really, really bad thing, IMO.

It was bad when the system told large guilds to kick or not advance, and it's bad now.

Get rid of decay. It only leads to aggravation.

Of course, everyone really wants to get rid of decay entirely; and I agree!

But we all know how slow Turbine works; if they ever make changes - might as well work with the system, instead of against it... since they made it so easy to work with the system now!

[Dandonk]

Of course, everyone really wants to get rid of decay entirely; and I agree!

But we all know how slow Turbine works; if they ever make changes - might as well work with the system, instead of against it... since they made it so easy to work with the system now!

I'm pessimistic/realistic enough to acknowledge that it may take forever for decay to get removed. But some traitorous part of me still holds out hope.

I still think it is bad for the system to be so skewed towards one kind of guild, but we'll see what happens. I'll keep posting here until Turbine does something. Should be fun to see this thread still going strong in four years

[slarden]

I'm pessimistic/realistic enough to acknowledge that it may take forever for decay to get removed. But some traitorous part of me still holds out hope.

I still think it is bad for the system to be so skewed towards one kind of guild, but we'll see what happens. I'll keep posting here until Turbine does something. Should be fun to see this thread still going strong in four years

I doubt anything will be done for small guilds. This change was a quick decision based on developer preference. They proved they could make a change very quickly by making this change a few weeks after the developer noted "read by devs" in the thread that prompted this change. Notice that the same developer didn't put a single empathetic comment regarding the current situation for tiny guilds. Nor has any action been taken in 6 months and most likely never. Instead we saw comments like "It's just a day" regarding the ransack penalty. Those actually playing the game in small guilds actually understand it's multiple days because of the bouncing back and forth until you can actually overcome decay and hold that level.

On the plus side Neverwinter starts open beta on April 30 and there will be no character wipes after that point. It will be really nice to have a D&D MMO option without crushing decay. The guild mechanic is purely social in Neverwinter and regardless of guild size you won't lose any in-game benefits because of the size guild you choose to be in.

You win some and you lose some. Many times in life one door closes and another opens and when you look back you are glad the other door closed on you. Perhaps this will be one of the times. 3 people from my guild and 4 from other small guilds have told me they are switching because of the guild system. And I never initiated the topic with a single person. I can't imagine I just happened to run into the only people switching because of the guild system.