Guild Renown Changes

[bazooka99]

My experience is most guilds take pride in the quality of their members and would not be willing to fill up with problem or unknown players. That strategy risks losing quality players because their guild environment is no longer enjoyable. Also guilds that just fill with as many bodies as possible tend to get a certain reputation on the server that negatively affects the quality members. I don't think that strategy will be common for guilds that are currently well established and have any pride in their current member quality or reputation.

I think a number of guilds will now be able to reach 100 by doing what they do today: accepting new members that show promise and keeping quality players regardless of low or high game hours. Personally seeing more guilds reach and stay at 100 doesn't bother me any more than seeing players reach and stay at 25.

I agree with that, most guild members will want to stick with the people they know. In fact, I myself will continue to remain the leader of my level 27 guild of 3 accounts rather than join some massive level 100 guild of people I've never even played with. My guild and my personal investment in it is more important to me than the benefits of a level 100 guild. Still it just seems weird to me that Turbine should force anyone to make this kind of choice. If they change the renown system too much, they eventually may just be better off giving everyone the benefits of a max level guild and making renown just that - renown, something that doesn't affect gameplay but is more like "bragging rights" (or like the monster manual, with some small fringe benefits).

[Tshober]

Still it just seems weird to me that Turbine should force anyone to make this kind of choice.

Old Decay Choice: Kick out casual/social players & never invite newb players, OR stop advancing forever.

New Choice: Join a larger guild & advance faster, OR continue to advance at the speed you were before (or slightly better).

Which choice is more reasonable? Which has the more extreme consequences, for guilds and for DDO as a whole? I think it is very clear.

If they change the renown system too much, they eventually may just be better off giving everyone the benefits of a max level guild and making renown just that - renown, something that doesn't affect gameplay but is more like "bragging rights" (or like the monster manual, with some small fringe benefits).

I wish they had done that to begin with. It would have saved us all a great deal of anguish.

[Faxe]

My feedback after reading almost every post in this thread so far including the really long one with the fancy charts and statistics:

This change is good for the game. PLEASE KEEP IT. Someone even purchased more DDO points after this change.

Ideas from others that I like:

• Other ways to gain renown such as reaching certain levels/favors, completing quests/raids, hitting slayers/explorers
• Lower the number of days before an account goes inactive
• Adjust the bonus to give smaller guilds a fair chance
• Remove 100% renown from players who are kicked
• Remove 0 renown for leaving on good terms
• Make ship buffs last longer or until death
• Raise the level to 500
• Provide more ship option/customization including a pool table
• Just remove decay completely already (This is supported by many, but best stated by bloodwork)
• 9 women can average 1/baby a month for 9 months

I understand the level of efforts that many guilds have previously put into achieving their current high levels. It is just as impressive that many large, casual guilds have achieved levels over 60. But I cannot see any reason how this change will hurt current guilds or the game by creating large mass-recruit guilds.

My feeling is that renown and guild level should not be confused as a 'prestige' or 'activity' measurement. The actual good deeds that players/guilds have done for others in game do not need any measurement. The in-game renown is just a number that we gain while adventuring that allows our guilds to unlock more airship features. That should be all. That is why it should not be a system to exclude guilds because of sizes or activities.

[countfitz]

If they change the renown system too much, they eventually may just be better off giving everyone the benefits of a max level guild and making renown just that - renown, something that doesn't affect gameplay but is more like "bragging rights" (or like the monster manual, with some small fringe benefits).

I made this suggestion a long time ago, except I said use DDO Store for low level guilds and Plat for high levels.

So basically, a low level guild could buy everything a high level can, but with Turbine points instead of plat.

As it is, the DDO Store sells ship amenities five levels before you can buy them with plat, so the idea is there... the problem is they're still too high for casual guilds.

So just allow any level 1 guild to buy everything they want with RL money.

Renown becomes what it should be, a mark of respect, not something that divides casual players and power gamers even further.

And, IMO, a casual gamer (stereotypically) has a real life and job, and therefore the money to do this, a powergamer has the time to level a guild and the plat to spend. It makes sense.

Finally, it will make Turbine more money.

And it isn't unbalancing, any casual gamer can get a ship invite from a powergamer in a high level guild and get the same benefits, but for free instead of paying Turbine... so the only person who wins in this suggestion is Turbine (and nobody loses.)

[9Crows]

as a guild leader of a guild with 100 active accts the removal of penaltys for having many accts in guild is a positive step in the right direction

we were a mass recruiting guild when we started and i lOVED it

we had lots of different people at all skill lvls and all play/build styles and it was fun

more people = more fun

i loved recruiting new players,watching thier enjoyment of a new game was like watching kids open presents at christmass

then alot of forumites started saying mass recruiting guilds were just exploiting the sytem for fast lvls.that it ws all about guild lvls prestige and so forth..turbines responce was decay...which effectivly killed large guilds ...why because people want to advance,even slowly regardlss of rewards so alot of people left large guilds which werent advancing to join small guilds that were..and large guilds started reducing acct size drastically to stay viable

to all the people who equate what guild your in as sign of your social worth in game or how good of a player you are..or discriminate against players because of thier skill lvl or what guild they are in.... i dont think you ever played pnp d&d

D&D was always about fun 100% not being the strongest or the smartest or having the best gear or about the highest social standing groups that were about fun and kept the game fun lasted far longer than play for status groups


i think this is where the fight is in ddo ....its play for fun guilds who want to grow VS play for status guilds who think guilds are a measure of your worth



i miss recruiting people just for fun i really really miss it... i met alot of fun crazy(albiet short term) players that way

[Thayion516]

Ok .. so im horrible with math .. Whats the decay now with lv65 guild with 280 active accounts? per day.

Plz work thru the math so i can see how u got it for future use.

[EllisDee37]

Ok .. so im horrible with math .. Whats the decay now with lv65 guild with 280 active accounts? per day.

Plz work thru the math so i can see how u got it for future use.

On this page, look up your level modifier and multiply it by 20. That's your daily decay. There is no longer an account modifier. (There is, but it's always 20 regardless of your number of accounts.)

Level 65 level modifier: 384.475000
280 account modifier: 20

Your daily decay is now 384.475 * 20 = 7689.5

It used to be 384.475 * 290 = 111,497.75

[bazooka99]

It sounds like the renown level is calculated the same as before, only with a fixed account multiplier of 20 (previously the min. multiplier). So decay is now calculated as follows:

(Level^3)*(1 for levels 26-30, 2 for 31-35, ..., 15 for 96-100)*(2.5 for levels 26-40, 3 for levels 41-60, 3.5 for levels 61-80, 4 for levels 81-99, 4.5 for level 100)/1000 renown decay per day

Which is a bit simpler than before. Or, you can just look up the level multiplier from the table on the wiki's guild renown page, multiply by 20, and you should get the same result.

Edit: ^ beat me to it

[Singular]

Greetings! We are putting forth modifications currently trying out some temporary adjustments to the Guild Renown system and monitoring the outcome and feedback this week. The intent is to address concerns from guilds and guild leaders regarding the impact of optimizing guild size in order to gain or maintain guild levels. We’ll be making additional balance changes that we think you and your guildmates will appreciate, but for now we have applied the changes without downtime. As of today, you will notice two changes to your renown rates:

1. Renown decay no longer takes guild size into account. This should ease the pressure for guild leaders to “kick” members from the guild to offset daily renown decay rates. Renown decay now only takes a guild’s level into consideration rather than its size.
2. Renown ransack has been increased. Previously when a guild earned levels in a day, it would gradually reduce the renown drop rates. We’ve increased the rate so that a guild can only earn roughly 3 levels in a single day. This should prevent large guilds from completely dominating the field in terms of levels per-day.

There are some balance Pros and Cons to this method, but we’d like guilds to give us feedback about their experiences using the new settings this week. If players like the settings, or feel it is workable with minor tweaks, then we are ready to keep them! If players find the changes make matters worse, then we are scheduled to revert them. So this week, we encourage guild leaders/members to use this thread to give us feedback about how the changes are impacting your guild leveling dynamics. Important feedback for us is points where frustration has eased (or increased). Thanks for your participation as we work to improve our guild leveling system!

Fantastic, thank you!

I'm a guild leader on Thelanis. We're a smallish guild, with 25 or so members and most of them casual, including many very casual (7-9 inactive accounts), and a couple members with primary toons on other servers. In the previous system, I came to the conclusion we'd have to dump some people, though I didn't really know how as characters are not linked to accounts, so I didn't know if I was booting unused alts or accounts.

Anyways, I don't want to boot people. I want a guild that has lots of people and play styles - and your new system here achieves this. Now I never have to kick anyone and, when they miss DDO and find the time to log in, they'll find us waiting to join up again.

RE this week: Renown has been increasing at much higher levels than last week. We've had steady, small gains each day and that's uplifting.

RE suggestions for change: minimum level platforms might be a good idea, from which if guilds reach they do not drop from. I would not like to see rules about recruiting or booting players, though, since this game has ever been about choice in play style. I personally don't care how our guild competes on the leader boards, I just want a fun atmosphere with lots of players.

It makes sense that a larger guild would gain renown faster. Guilds are made powerful by their social interaction - the same is true in game. More people, more social networks, more innovation.

[Singular]

I'm not sure I like the idea of low-end blind recruitment guilds getting to the same levels of high end quality guilds who have earned their rank. With the old system casual and so-so guilds would peter out and be forever trapped at whatever level while the active quality guilds would continue on. If a guild can recruit the whole of Korthos everyday and be able to mathmatically make 100, why even have ranks? They'd be meaningless.

Why does it matter to you how a guild other than your own performs?

[Singular]

So we still get a penalty for removing inactive players, but with this there is no real reason to remove them because they WILL NOT contribute to decay.
If we remove them, we are penalized. But if we just leave them, the list of inactives will grow and grow. My guild just did a cleanup in order to counteract the dead weight decay. Under this new system, there will be absolutly no reason to do this in the future.

I guess what i'm saying is: we no longer have incentive to remove inactives other then to shorten the member list. In the future, could some-thing be added to allow us to remove clearly inactive, abandoned-DDO players (assuming something like this is pernament)? Something like 'after 2 monthes, removing the player will not cause additional decay of loss of earned renown'.

People who were inactive in my guild for 6 months vanished from our guild roster. However, on my friend's list, they still appear as if in my guild.

[Singular]

This was a relatively simple change we could try make without bringing down a server, today instead of months from now. We're still happy to hear ways to manage guilds of different sizes reasonably while also not motivating guilds to kick players.

We know there's some players who have likely spent as much or more time thinking about these things as we have individually. Feel free to discuss pros and cons, such as whether or not 1000 player guilds reaching and staying at level 100 is a problem that needs solving.

I can't imagine why it would be a problem for a large guild to reach 1000 players, unless the complainer is a person who needs a competitive environment to feel content. If that's the case, and if some people want guild levels to mean "we're better because we play every day" then how about having "prestige" levels about 100 that use the old decay system?

[Singular]

This does nothing but reward max recruiting guilds. There's no reason for this and it's a poor move that punishes small guilds

It doesn't punish any guild size. It simply removes the punishment from having casual players.

Why are you so worried that some guilds might benefit from this change?

[Singular]

These new changes will kill all the guilds who have invested on the quality and not on numbers of their members.

My guild got only 11 very active accounts and we have achieved 93 guild levels in less than 1 year ( see Obscura Consilium - Sarlona), so now we will get the same renow decay of a guild level 93 with 200 accounts right?

Well, this does not seem respectful for all people who put diligence and sacrifices to obtain prestigious levels.

So you're only way to judge your worth is if others perform poorly because of a system that penalizes casual players?

[Singular]

as a guild leader of a guild with 100 active accts the removal of penaltys for having many accts in guild is a positive step in the right direction

we were a mass recruiting guild when we started and i lOVED it

we had lots of different people at all skill lvls and all play/build styles and it was fun

more people = more fun

i loved recruiting new players,watching thier enjoyment of a new game was like watching kids open presents at christmass

then alot of forumites started saying mass recruiting guilds were just exploiting the sytem for fast lvls.that it ws all about guild lvls prestige and so forth..turbines responce was decay...which effectivly killed large guilds ...why because people want to advance,even slowly regardlss of rewards so alot of people left large guilds which werent advancing to join small guilds that were..and large guilds started reducing acct size drastically to stay viable

to all the people who equate what guild your in as sign of your social worth in game or how good of a player you are..or discriminate against players because of thier skill lvl or what guild they are in.... i dont think you ever played pnp d&d

D&D was always about fun 100% not being the strongest or the smartest or having the best gear or about the highest social standing groups that were about fun and kept the game fun lasted far longer than play for status groups


i think this is where the fight is in ddo ....its play for fun guilds who want to grow VS play for status guilds who think guilds are a measure of your worth



i miss recruiting people just for fun i really really miss it... i met alot of fun crazy(albiet short term) players that way

I totally agree with you.

[Theloser]

So this week, we encourage guild leaders/members to use this thread to give us feedback about how the changes are impacting your guild leveling dynamics. Important feedback for us is points where frustration has eased (or increased). Thanks for your participation as we work to improve our guild leveling system!

So far we are liking the guild changes in one of the guilds I am in. Before this week we were backsliding in levels since most of our members are casual players and a few are off playing other games for a little while. They still log in every week or two to say hi and chat for abit so they caused decay before this week. We have no intention of removing any of them so it is nice to see these changes so we have a chance of moving forward again.

[Aons]

Would it be possible to counterbalance with renown penalties when a character:

- dies in quest
- is afk (>5minutes maybe) in a quest
- fails or abandons a quest

The amounts dont have to be big, but enough maybe to cancel an heroic deeds.

After all, making renown by finding trophies sounds easy, why not counterbalancing by something that would, in a RP mode, dishonor the character?

Any idea on this?

[moiinwar]

Would it be possible to counterbalance with renown penalties when a character:

- dies in quest
- is afk (>5minutes maybe) in a quest
- fails or abandons a quest

The amounts dont have to be big, but enough maybe to cancel an heroic deeds.

After all, making renown by finding trophies sounds easy, why not counterbalancing by something that would, in a RP mode, dishonor the character?

Any idea on this?

I don't like it because it would make hard content give players less renown than easy content. I think that players should get more renown if they manage to beat hard content.

[Dekh]

So you're only way to judge your worth is if others perform poorly because of a system that penalizes casual players?

Yes, was so far.

[Aons]

I don't like it because it would make hard content give players less renown than easy content. I think that players should get more renown if they manage to beat hard content.

Well, the game should actually reward more a difficult content than an easy content and it doesn't. This precise point requires balance too. Finding renown in chests doesnt illustrate the fact that u have potentially been brave and heroic.

But it would lead to change the renown system in its conception and i think that's becoming off-topic.