Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

Your assertion about small guild advancement is an epic fail.

A 10 person level 81 guild that earned 500 renown per day per member would earn 17,000 renown per day with the bonus. That guild would lose 8,509 decay for the day. A 400 person level 81 guild that earned 500 renown per day per member would earn 200,000 renown for the day and end up with a net gain of 174,490.8 for the day. This is precisely why small guilds that were stuck before the change are still stuck, and large guilds that were stuck before the change have gained as much as 30 levels. And the guild that gained 30 levels has 400 members. The huge renown earning potential they have with the low decay/player makes advancement easy.

Now consider my small 10 person guild has only a few people that log in per day since people have jobs, kids, wives, girlfriends, etc., the daily requirement for those that log in is much higher. We had one go inactive a few days ago bringing our active guild size back to 9.

If the 400 person guild earned 20% of the small guild (20% as active) they would still gain net renown for the day while the tiny guild that is 500% more active moves back.

The only guilds that can advance at very high levels are guilds that are mostly hardcore players and very selective. Guilds like mine that don't boot players and take casual players can't advance even if some of the members are very active.

I agree with the previous idea about start-up guilds. They can't keep players because any good players are wanted by the high level guilds. Casual and new players are wanted by a tiny percentage of guilds. The only guilds that can freely take on new players are large and well established. Even so, most of those guilds don't take on new or casual players because they prefer vets.

The current system is driving away players just as the previous system did. It's time to make the system a positive for all guilds instead of a negative for the game that costs Turbine players.

It seems to me both guilds would be gaining. Any guild making more than they lose is advancing.


Also a 400 player guild is much more likely to be earning 5 renown/day/player than 500 after considering that 200 of those members are likely on the slow road to inactivity due to the fact they no longer play, 150 of them play occasionally, 30 play rather casually and the remaining 20 cover the lions share of the renown the guild earns. While the small guild likely contains 10 generally active players or they never likely would have met to form up in the first place. IMO, the main reason players form large guilds is to make the minority that are actually playing at any one time a viable number of players.

[Dandonk]

It seems to me both guilds would be gaining. Any guild making more than they lose is advancing.

No. The 10 person guild earns 17k renown, but loses 25.5k due to decay. Net loss per day: 8.5k.
The 400 person guild earns 200k renown, a net gain of 174.5k per day.

As long as the 400 person guild earns more than 8.5% of what the 10-person guild does, averaged oved the members, they'll come out ahead. Or to put it another way: The 10-person guild has to pull nearly 12 times as much renown (before small guild bonus) to make as much renown as the large guild.

Now, I wouldn't really mind this part as much, except that I can actually LOSE progress in guild levels.

[Aliss7]

Since myddo is borked and I have no way of getting this info anymore (easily), here's the renown data I've been collecting of my guild for the past ~187 days. It's a small/casual guild. Active accounts is currently 8 I believe; in the past it's been higher, but the trend is a small bump then accounts go inactive.





median renown per day: 7739
average renown per day: 11184

[Tshober]

Not exactly true. Activity level is still the the core flaw in the system, it's just easier for larger guilds to reach the decay threshold with less active players.

Very active guilds are having little problem beating decay currently, regardless of size.

IMO, trying to rate players based on how much they play was a mistake to begin with. All that ends up doing is turning the majority of the games customer base into comparative losers, especially at the levels that were originally set. Generally, not a good way to maintain customers.

Exactly. Rating players on how often they play is pretty silly and should never have been implemented in the first place. But, unfortunately, it was implemented and because it was we are still suffering from it. Large guilds are more easily able to overcome it now. Small guilds should also get decay relief. Ideally, decay should be eliminated entirely.

[TheNewSlarden]

It seems to me both guilds would be gaining. Any guild making more than they lose is advancing.


Also a 400 player guild is much more likely to be earning 5 renown/day/player than 500 after considering that 200 of those members are likely on the slow road to inactivity due to the fact they no longer play, 150 of them play occasionally, 30 play rather casually and the remaining 20 cover the lions share of the renown the guild earns. While the small guild likely contains 10 generally active players or they never likely would have met to form up in the first place. IMO, the main reason players form large guilds is to make the minority that are actually playing at any one time a viable number of players.

It would be great if both guilds advanced, but instead the tiny guild moves backwards and the large guild moves forward very fast due to the broken system currently in place.

Your assertion that large guilds earn less decay/player is not backed up by any facts or data. There is no reason to believe that activity level has to do with guild size. In fact, before the change even though there was a tiny percentage of small guilds at high levels, the typical large guild was a higher level than the typical small guild.

You are using bath based on false numbers because you are assuming small guilds have more active members. If that was the case DDO should be discouraging large guilds and encouraging small guilds since it causes them to be more active. But it's not true, activity level and guild size are unrelated variable.

Large guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. Small guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. It's simply a grouping preference and DDO should not apply a penalty harshly solely because of a grouping preference. It will only continue to drive more people away from the game.

[TheNewSlarden]

Since myddo is borked and I have no way of getting this info anymore (easily), here's the renown data I've been collecting of my guild for the past ~187 days. It's a small/casual guild. Active accounts is currently 8 I believe; in the past it's been higher, but the trend is a small bump then accounts go inactive.

median renown per day: 7739
average renown per day: 11184

Thank you for sharing this. This means your guild will start to stall in the 60s and stop advancing completely by level 70. I think Neverwinter got it right when they decided not to include a penalty mechanic that punishes guilds in this fashion.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Thank you for sharing this. This means your guild will start to stall in the 60s and stop advancing completely by level 70. I think Neverwinter got it right when they decided not to include a penalty mechanic that punishes guilds in this fashion.

60	4,536
61	6,355
62	6,673
63	7,001
64	7,340
65	7,690
66	9,056
67	9,474
68	9,905
69	10,348
70	10,805
71	12,527
72	13,064
73	13,616
74	14,183
75	14,766
76	16,901

Agree...... system is as borked as last system. BOHICA.

Time to fix it. enough data has been collected.

[Asanarama]

There should be no such thing as guild renown. A guild should consist only of a chat channel and a shared bank, both controlled by a reasonable system of leadership. Ideally, people join a guild because they get along with each other and tend to be online at the same times so they can play together. That's what makes a guild fun, but it's not easy to achieve. Adding other factors only makes it harder. If you want the significant advantages available only to members of high-level guilds, you have to almost entirely give up on what makes a guild fun. The number of members needed to increase a guild's level at a reasonable rate almost guarantees that people won't get along.

[Tshober]

There should be no such thing as guild renown. A guild should consist only of a chat channel and a shared bank, both controlled by a reasonable system of leadership. Ideally, people join a guild because they get along with each other and tend to be online at the same times so they can play together. That's what makes a guild fun, but it's not easy to achieve. Adding other factors only makes it harder. If you want the significant advantages available only to members of high-level guilds, you have to almost entirely give up on what makes a guild fun. The number of members needed to increase a guild's level at a reasonable rate almost guarantees that people won't get along.

Everyone wants different things from a guild. The guild you describe would be a very poor guild to me. The very first thing I would say upon joining such a guild is "when will we get some more members?" It sounds like you just want a small friends list and a private chat channel. That might be ok for some but others want more. Like the ability to organize guild raids regularly or a guild meeting hall where they can meet and RP or a guild chat channel that actually has a lot of people on it chatting. I don't disagree that having renown and levels for guilds might be optional but please don't assume that your view of what is a good guild is the same view of what is a good guild for everyone.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Everyone wants different things from a guild. The guild you describe would be a very poor guild to me. The very first thing I would say upon joining such a guild is "when will we get some more members?" It sounds like you just want a small friends list and a private chat channel. That might be ok for some but others want more. Like the ability to organize guild raids regularly or a guild meeting hall where they can meet and RP or a guild chat channel that actually has a lot of people on it chatting. I don't disagree that having renown and levels for guilds might be optional but please don't assume that your view of what is a good guild is the same view of what is a good guild for everyone.

Agree. Everyone wants something different and the guild system should support them all.

[UurlockYgmeov]

http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Guild

for crying out loud.... this is 1000x better than what we have already. facepalm *groan*

[Arnez]

IKnowRite?!?!?

Just wait until they bring in Guild Halls or (gasp) Guild SKYSHIPS.


Here is some free advice Turbine: Remove Guild Decay. It may (yet) not be too late.

[Nestroy]

http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Guild

for crying out loud.... this is 1000x better than what we have already. facepalm *groan*

No buffs yet, only socializing, no leaderboards, no level. Well, at least no hassle to gain anything - there simply isn´t..

Personal opinion, what DDO has too much, NWO is too barren. But I am sure they will start soon(tm) to add pay2play buffs for guilds...

IKnowRite?!?!?

Just wait until they bring in Guild Halls or (gasp) Guild SKYSHIPS.


Here is some free advice Turbine: Remove Guild Decay. It may (yet) not be too late.

Well, your suggestion is stone old. Still the best solution. But if Turbine and the DEVs would have given even a dime for whats our opinion´s worth, we would have a system without decay in place for at least 2 years now.

[Asanarama]

Everyone wants different things from a guild. The guild you describe would be a very poor guild to me. The very first thing I would say upon joining such a guild is "when will we get some more members?"

Why? If it's so the guild can level more quickly, that's my point. If it weren't necessary to pad a guild's numbers just for the sake of leveling at a reasonable speed, we'd be more able to form guilds with people because we actually like them.

It sounds like you just want a small friends list and a private chat channel. That might be ok for some but others want more.

I’m not happy with how I phrased things. It might be possible to add some other features in a way that doesn’t make it more difficult to maintain the ideal of “people who like each other and tend to be online at the same time” or however I put it. The current guild leveling system, however, significantly interferes with it.

Like the ability to organize guild raids regularly

An in-game guild event calendar would be great. If you’re talking about having enough members to be able to raid regularly, I agree. My impression, however, is that the number of members needed to level a guild at a reasonable rate vastly exceeds the number of members needed to be able to raid regularly.

or a guild chat channel that actually has a lot of people on it chatting.

This is going to sound familiar, but the number of members needed to level a guild at a reasonable rate vastly exceeds the number of members needed to maintain a reasonable amount of chat. Also, the extent to which one appreciates the chat is proportional to the extent to which the guild approaches the ideals I mentioned.

don't assume that your view of what is a good guild is the same view of what is a good guild for everyone.

I don’t assume that. I’m in the habit of never using phrases like “I think” and “in my opinion” as they only clutter one’s writing. The standard, as I remember learning in high school or maybe earlier, is that it’s up to the reader to distinguish fact from opinion.

Agree. Everyone wants something different and the guild system should support them all.

Would that include the idea that guilds of all sizes should have access to the same benefits?

[Tshober]

Why? If it's so the guild can level more quickly, that's my point.

No, not at all. So there will be more people to talk to, group with, get advice from, etc. It has been my experience that not everyone will always be the same level and always level at the same speed and always play at the same times. It just does not work that way for most casual game players. Being in a large guild gives such players, those who do not have a fixed playing group, the best chance to find others online that they can play with when they want to play. Yes, it is possible to do the same thing through PUGs but a large guild is often easier, especially for new players, So many of the LFG's are elite BB BYOH fests meant for TR's who have done the quests a hundred times and will zerg through them as fast as possible. My guild was very large (for years) when being very large meant your guild was NEVER going to level up. Ever. We are very happy that we can level up now, but even if we still could not level at all, we would be large and we would accept new players because there is a great need in DDO for such guilds.

[TheNewSlarden]

No, not at all. So there will be more people to talk to, group with, get advice from, etc. It has been my experience that not everyone will always be the same level and always level at the same speed and always play at the same times. It just does not work that way for most casual game players. Being in a large guild gives such players, those who do not have a fixed playing group, the best chance to find others online that they can play with when they want to play. Yes, it is possible to do the same thing through PUGs but a large guild is often easier, especially for new players, So many of the LFG's are elite BB BYOH fests meant for TR's who have done the quests a hundred times and will zerg through them as fast as possible. My guild was very large (for years) when being very large meant your guild was NEVER going to level up. Ever. We are very happy that we can level up now, but even if we still could not level at all, we would be large and we would accept new players because there is a great need in DDO for such guilds.

That is your point of view. The fact is most of the casual gamers I run into are in small guilds or new guilds - not the large established guilds that benefited the most from these changes. Most of those guilds will not take the casual players that are so often touted as the reason why this change was good.

I think healthy small and new guilds are more important to DDO as they effectively drive the LFM system. We've already seen a massive drop in LFMs since this system was put in place because it gave big incentives for the large established guilds to recruit veteran players. Now those vets are no longer forming LFMs.

guild size is a personal preference. As much as you try to argue it, it's simply not true that large guilds are better for DDO or preferable.

I don't think anything will change. I was informed that the developer responsible for these changes posted a response here with a non-developer account effectively saying that small guilds are only suffering due to their own playstyle choice. I was not aware that was the developer's account at the time, but I do believe the person that told me.

Of course that argument is completely faulty. In the example I posted earlier about level 81 guilds.with each guild averaging 500 renown per person. The 10 person guild lost renown and the 400 person guild gained approximately 175k renwown for the day. Now without decay, the large guild would gain 200k and the small guild would gain 17k. That is where the playstyle choice should come into play- with slower movement not by stopping guilds from advancing.

With no guild decay the 10 person guild would advance 17k and the large guild would advance 200k instead of the small guild moving backwards and the large guild gaining 175k. But the developer chose to make it even harder for small guilds with the ransack penalty on top of it all. What is the point of decay? The sole purpose now is to prevent tiny guilds from advancing.

The only size-neutral D&D system that will be around any time soon is with Neverwinter. It doesn't appear Turbine even understands or acknowledges the issue. They didn't even have the courtesy to announce whether this change was permanent or temporary - they simply just dropped out of the discussion and didn't communicate anything.

[Dandonk]

I don't think anything will change. I was informed that the developer responsible for these changes posted a response here with a non-developer account effectively saying that small guilds are only suffering due to their own playstyle choice. I was not aware that was the developer's account at the time, but I do believe the person that told me.

I sincerely hope you were misinformed.

But after so many months, it does seem like that is Turbine's position - even if they have stated the opposite, they are sure not acting on previous statements.

[jalont]

It would be great if both guilds advanced, but instead the tiny guild moves backwards and the large guild moves forward very fast due to the broken system currently in place.

Your assertion that large guilds earn less decay/player is not backed up by any facts or data. There is no reason to believe that activity level has to do with guild size. In fact, before the change even though there was a tiny percentage of small guilds at high levels, the typical large guild was a higher level than the typical small guild.

You are using bath based on false numbers because you are assuming small guilds have more active members. If that was the case DDO should be discouraging large guilds and encouraging small guilds since it causes them to be more active. But it's not true, activity level and guild size are unrelated variable.

Large guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. Small guilds happen because people prefer to group that way. It's simply a grouping preference and DDO should not apply a penalty harshly solely because of a grouping preference. It will only continue to drive more people away from the game.

I think there is a big disconnect between some players and Turbine regarding this issue. It's clear that Turbine wants the current guild system to be a ranking system and a competition. And honestly, that's how most games do it. This idea that all guilds are special is foreign to me. It's just not something I've seen before or something I would enjoy.

So while Turbine designs the guild system in this manner, we get other people complaining that it hurts small guilds. Well, honestly, that could be on purpose. Perhaps a small guild isn't supposed to be the same as a large guild. This isn't the way the system is designed.

Now, about decay. Most games have some factor that ranks their guilds by current activity, so you get a snapshot of guild rank as it currently is. Because of the nature of DDO, this is something hard for the devs to do. There's no PVP and there is really no other score to rank them by. This is why renowned exists. This is why decay exists. It's an attempt by the devs to take a current snapshot of guild ranking. Could it be improved? Yes, but I'm not sure how. Simply doing away with decay would be a complete change to guild design, and while it seems that this is something you may enjoy, it's not something everyone would enjoy. I like guilds being a competition. I use channels and friends lists for grouping. To me, guilds are something different, and that's the current design.

[Dandonk]

I think there is a big disconnect between some players and Turbine regarding this issue. It's clear that Turbine wants the current guild system to be a ranking system and a competition. And honestly, that's how most games do it. This idea that all guilds are special is foreign to me. It's just not something I've seen before or something I would enjoy.

It used to be a ranking system. Now large guilds can advance while doing next to nothing, while small guilds are still stuck with the old decay - plus a higher ransack mechanic.

So while Turbine designs the guild system in this manner, we get other people complaining that it hurts small guilds. Well, honestly, that could be on purpose. Perhaps a small guild isn't supposed to be the same as a large guild. This isn't the way the system is designed.

They have said, both at the start of the renown system and more recently during this discussion, that they do not mean to make small guilds less attractive.

Though their actions, I grant you, say otherwise.

Now, about decay. Most games have some factor that ranks their guilds by current activity, so you get a snapshot of guild rank as it currently is. Because of the nature of DDO, this is something hard for the devs to do. There's no PVP and there is really no other score to rank them by. This is why renowned exists. This is why decay exists. It's an attempt by the devs to take a current snapshot of guild ranking. Could it be improved? Yes, but I'm not sure how. Simply doing away with decay would be a complete change to guild design, and while it seems that this is something you may enjoy, it's not something everyone would enjoy. I like guilds being a competition. I use channels and friends lists for grouping. To me, guilds are something different, and that's the current design.

As long as the "competition" is somewhat fair for both small and large guilds.

There was a problem earlier when large guilds had trouble advancing without kicking the less active members. This new system is what we got in consequence. This seems to indicate that 1) Turbine wants less active players to not be left out, and therefore 2) They don't really care about the activity competition part anymore.

Get rid of decay altogether. It doesn't serve the purpose it did before - it only serves to hold small guilds back.

[Tshober]

They don't really care about the activity competition part anymore.

Get rid of decay altogether. It doesn't serve the purpose it did before - it only serves to hold small guilds back.

The whole idea of making a competition out of how much time you spend farming renown to outpace the decay monster is pretty ridiculous. It is inherently biased against casual players because it does not adjust for time logged in. In fact, it basically boils down to those who spend the most time logged in every day win. Having a small token reward for such dedication to the game would be okay but basing the entire guild leveling system on that is just not a good strategy. This became apparent when established guilds pretty much unanimously shunned casual/social players and new players when it was obvious they could only advance by doing so. The devs put in a quick patch that reduced the decay for many guilds but, unfortunately, it did not reduce decay at all for small guilds. You are correct to point out that decay no longer is serving its original intended purpose and is still serving its unintended purpose for small guilds. It should be eliminated entirely.

If a guild activity contest is needed, then it should be separate from guild leveling and should be for bragging rights only. In no MMO I have ever played is your character level tied to competition with other players. Why should guild level be tied to competition with other guilds? In no MMO I have ever played is guild progress lost on a regular daily schedule like it is in DDO. No other part of DDO takes away your progress after you have earned it. Why must renown decay work so differently from everything else in DDO and from other MMO's? Renown decay was an interesting experiment that didn't work out well. It's time to end it.