Guild Renown Changes

[Dandonk]

Personally I do not particularly want large guilds to have more decay again. I want deay to go entirely away, or at the very least get significantly reduced for small guilds, just like it was for large guilds.

Turbine has stated that it's not fair that some of us should be kept waiting. But after that, it has still been several months. Come on, Turbine - stop this unfair treatment of small guilds now.

[Charononus]

Yeah, the old problem with me (and others here) not being native speakers. Of course I want to get rid of decay completely,. I do not want to see any guild stalling. Independent of size or activity. Post edited accordingly.

Cool

Personally I do not particularly want large guilds to have more decay again. I want deay to go entirely away, or at the very least get significantly reduced for small guilds, just like it was for large guilds.

Turbine has stated that it's not fair that some of us should be kept waiting. But after that, it has still been several months. Come on, Turbine - stop this unfair treatment of small guilds now.

Yeah, I don't believe it's true of 99.9% of people that they want large guilds to stall again. (you always get that 0.1% where the person is just kind of odd) And it very well could be language issues, but when I first started reading this thread I did think there were some thinking otherwise that as I've read more and more proved not to be thinking that. (hope that made sense) That's why I pointed out how it read to me. I think small guilds do need the help, and if small tweaks to the wording help get more people on board, then I just want to point that out and try to help with that.

[Dandonk]

Yeah, I don't believe it's true of 99.9% of people that they want large guilds to stall again. (you always get that 0.1% where the person is just kind of odd) And it very well could be language issues, but when I first started reading this thread I did think there were some thinking otherwise that as I've read more and more proved not to be thinking that. (hope that made sense) That's why I pointed out how it read to me. I think small guilds do need the help, and if small tweaks to the wording help get more people on board, then I just want to point that out and try to help with that.

It's a very good point, and wording should definitely be changed to where we get the most people possible on board with this

[slarden]

I recently lost one of my best guild mates due to decay. His frustration stemmed from the fact that a small guild (6 accounts) was having to earn 3000 renown per member every day just to stay ahead of the decay. With the change favoring large guilds it seems that DDO has chosen to eliminate or at least encourage the small guilds to fold up shop and get assimilated by large guilds. Please find a means to either eliminate decay or reduce the penalties so that high level guilds with a small number of active players don't have to be obsessive just to maintain their current guild level. I appreciate the guild renown bonus for a 6 person guild, but the 17,000 plus daily decay is just too much.

I can relate. We lost our guild leader because of guild decay and the fact that he spent considerable $ on renown elixirs not realizing that we would eventually stall during decay. He felt the system was misleading and unethical and moved on to SWTOR and is also playing NWO. I convinced him to play now and again, but his breaking point was when we gained a level and couldn't get any renown drops to ensure he could hold our level. We were up into the wee hours of the morning to get enough renown just to avoid losing the level we gained.

We found this thread and learned that not only did our guild get no benefit from this change, they made it much harder for us to keep levels we earn. He decided to quit the next day. He is a face to face friend also.

I lost 2 more casual face to face friends when they learned our guild moved backwards if they didn't play much. Neither played much, but both spent a reasonable amount of money on the game - they are both professionals with good jobs and families. They are in our SWTOR guild and NWO guild. We don't have any disadvantages in either game for being who we are. Only in DDO.

In November I started solo zerging rather than using the LFM system and we once again started moving forward since this enabled me to get at least triple the renown. I got this tip from someone I quested with on Sarlona who read my posts here and explained that is how his guild moved to high levels - zerging and not waiting to fill parties. Overall I do not understand why I get penalized for grouping with other people which results in slower runs and less renown. The system that gives us a fixed amount of decay every day doesn't allow our active guild to advance without these type of play style changes. It seems counterproductive and dumb to me.

[Tshober]

In November I started solo zerging rather than using the LFM system and we once again started moving forward since this enabled me to get at least triple the renown. I got this tip from someone I quested with on Sarlona who read my posts here and explained that is how his guild moved to high levels - zerging and not waiting to fill parties. Overall I do not understand why I get penalized for grouping with other people which results in slower runs and less renown. The system that gives us a fixed amount of decay every day doesn't allow our active guild to advance without these type of play style changes. It seems counterproductive and dumb to me.

I could not agree more. The best way to get people to keep playing the game is to allow them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. Renown decay strongly discourages all but a few styles of play, because other styles of play are penalized with greater daily renown loss. This mechanism should be eliminated.

[Dandonk]

I could not agree more. The best way to get people to keep playing the game is to allow them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. Renown decay strongly discourages all but a few styles of play, because other styles of play are penalized with greater daily renown loss. This mechanism should be eliminated.

Indeed. Open up the game to more people, instead of making them feel unwelcome.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I could not agree more. The best way to get people to keep playing the game is to allow them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. Renown decay strongly discourages all but a few styles of play, because other styles of play are penalized with greater daily renown loss. This mechanism should be eliminated.

agree

btw:

so how many days worth of decay did we just get hit with?? how many restarts?

appreciate the +15% and the lesser guild renown elixir groupon --- but will that make up for it?

[Dandonk]

Hello, Turbine?

How many months has it been since we got a real* reply? I'm not sure I can count that high...



* No, I don't count "We're not there yet" or "read by a dev" as meaningful and informative replies.

[slarden]

I could not agree more. The best way to get people to keep playing the game is to allow them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. Renown decay strongly discourages all but a few styles of play, because other styles of play are penalized with greater daily renown loss. This mechanism should be eliminated.

I agree, if you feel this way you may want to sign Nestroy's petition in the general discussion forum.

Thank you.

[Dandonk]

Never give up, never surrender!

Getting rid of decay will do the following positive Things for the game:

1) No players will feel their effort on behalf of their guild go away
2) Small guilds will nolonger have incentive to trim Down to the "hard" core of gamers
3) Guild choice will be a personal choice without incentive either way
4) Larger sale of guild ships for all the small guilds reaching higher levels
5) No eventual problem with guild renown lost from a member leaving being larger than the renown the guild has

And probably more I have forgotten.

Get rid of decay now, and make DDO a better place for everyone!

[slarden]

Never give up, never surrender!

Getting rid of decay will do the following positive Things for the game:

1) No players will feel their effort on behalf of their guild go away
2) Small guilds will nolonger have incentive to trim Down to the "hard" core of gamers
3) Guild choice will be a personal choice without incentive either way
4) Larger sale of guild ships for all the small guilds reaching higher levels
5) No eventual problem with guild renown lost from a member leaving being larger than the renown the guild has

And probably more I have forgotten.

Get rid of decay now, and make DDO a better place for everyone!

Yes, and I thank Nestroy for posting his petition in the general discussion forum. I was initially thinking that was a bad idea because most people don't want to see renown topics in the general discussion forum, but since the devs aren't checking in here and nobody else really checks here, it seems like the right approach. What I learned is that this is a common issue for people in tiny guilds. Even if the devs ignore the thread forever, it's definitely worth of being in the general discussion area.

If other people engage in tactics to close that thread it is their issue and they should be reported. As long as people supporting Nestroy's petition don't fall into the trap and respond to point/counterpoint responses continually it will stay open. If not, another can be opened starting off with a count and link to the last thread.

This topic used to be in the general discussion area multiple times per week when it was a large guild initiative. I don' think there is anything wrong with it being there as long as we aren't obnoxious and posting it numerous times in different threads.

Ironically there is a topic on suggestions to improve DDO and I didn't comment because I didn't want to spam the decay issue, and of course that got a "Read by devs" while the other topic was ignored by devs again. A previous suggestions to improve DDO had mostly ideas to remove renown and of course that one never got a "read by devs" even if it was read

Regardless of whether the haters try to hijack the thread or not, I thank you Nestroy for taking a stand and proving just how much support their is for this.

[Nestroy]

Yes, and I thank Nestroy for posting his petition in the general discussion forum. I was initially thinking that was a bad idea because most people don't want to see renown topics in the general discussion forum, but since the devs aren't checking in here and nobody else really checks here, it seems like the right approach. What I learned is that this is a common issue for people in tiny guilds. Even if the devs ignore the thread forever, it's definitely worth of being in the general discussion area.

If other people engage in tactics to close that thread it is their issue and they should be reported. As long as people supporting Nestroy's petition don't fall into the trap and respond to point/counterpoint responses continually it will stay open. If not, another can be opened starting off with a count and link to the last thread.

This topic used to be in the general discussion area multiple times per week when it was a large guild initiative. I don' think there is anything wrong with it being there as long as we aren't obnoxious and posting it numerous times in different threads.

Ironically there is a topic on suggestions to improve DDO and I didn't comment because I didn't want to spam the decay issue, and of course that got a "Read by devs" while the other topic was ignored by devs again. A previous suggestions to improve DDO had mostly ideas to remove renown and of course that one never got a "read by devs" even if it was read

Regardless of whether the haters try to hijack the thread or not, I thank you Nestroy for taking a stand and proving just how much support their is for this.

Thank you for the flowers, Slarden, even if completely undeserved. Let´s rejoyce on the day the renown decay finally is history. Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign for at least some official note from Turbine. Of course, I would rejoyce on Turbine doing this very small Change to their variables: SetActiveGuildMemberForDecayCount=0.

[slarden]

Thank you for the flowers, Slarden, even if completely undeserved. Let´s rejoyce on the day the renown decay finally is history. Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign for at least some official note from Turbine. Of course, I would rejoyce on Turbine doing this very small Change to their variables: SetActiveGuildMemberForDecayCount=0.

This seems like the easiest solution - it changes the decay multiplier from 20 to 10 for all guilds. Small guilds will still move at a slow pace but won't be stuck at the same level and can advance some. Large guilds won't move all that much faster but get as much benefit from it as small guilds.

I am not sure why Turbine thinks this is a risk to its revenue stream - they must not be factoring in the value of lost customers which I would argue is much more of a problem as small guilds drive the lfm system. This will only cause more player loss as people that can live with the guild system but rely on the lfm system also leave. It may not be a major domino effect, but it is a little domino effect and definitely negative for Turbine and their bottom line.

Turbine is missing a significant problem by not factoring in the impact of all this on the lfm system.

[Dandonk]

Thank you for the flowers, Slarden, even if completely undeserved. Let´s rejoyce on the day the renown decay finally is history. Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign for at least some official note from Turbine. Of course, I would rejoyce on Turbine doing this very small Change to their variables: SetActiveGuildMemberForDecayCount=0.

Oh, yes, that would be a nice and quick change indeed*.

And it -was- a good thing you posted that thread. It got the issue a bit of awareness Again. That was good


* Unless, of course, Turbine has, for some reason, decided to divide something by active guild member accounts. That could be.... interesting....

[UurlockYgmeov]

This seems like the easiest solution - it changes the decay multiplier from 20 to 10 for all guilds. Small guilds will still move at a slow pace but won't be stuck at the same level and can advance some. Large guilds won't move all that much faster but get as much benefit from it as small guilds.

I am not sure why Turbine thinks this is a risk to its revenue stream - they must not be factoring in the value of lost customers which I would argue is much more of a problem as small guilds drive the lfm system. This will only cause more player loss as people that can live with the guild system but rely on the lfm system also leave. It may not be a major domino effect, but it is a little domino effect and definitely negative for Turbine and their bottom line.

Turbine is missing a significant problem by not factoring in the impact of all this on the lfm system.

Changing the static variable from 20 to 10 is not a solution - just slides it around. If they do that (which I am totally against - fix it period not further kludge it) then it should be 1.

If turbine wants revenue - add professions like NWO - a single booster pack costs around 15$ and gives only a couple of things. They make money - DDO is a cash cow that just had twins.

[slarden]

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.

It's appreciated that you made changes that are allowing some guilds to advance 30 levels in a few months due to massive decay reductions.

When this change was first made, it was implied this is what could be done immediately without bringing down a server. You referred to "months from now" and it's now been several months. There has been no communication about why we need decay at all now that you've effectively removed it for large guilds.

We've given plenty of ideas on managing guilds sizes and I fail to see how getting rid of decay motivates guilds to kick players. The only thing that motivates people to kick members is decay itself.

You've never even told us whether this change is permanent. You implied changes would be coming for us, but seem to have abandoned this project with small guilds still struggling.

Please give us an update.

[Dandonk]

You've never even told us whether this change is permanent. You implied changes would be coming for us, but seem to have abandoned this project with small guilds still struggling.

Please give us an update.

/signed

Come on, Turbine, it's been months now. Give us some kind of insight into where you are going, what you are thinking about and what the time frame is.

[Dandonk]

It's not fair. We still feel it's better to address some of the problem now instead of none of the problem. This isn't expected to address all problems immediately. We're sorry some players are still waiting.

Hey, Vargouille, it's me again. We're still waiting. Any news? Any plans? Any word? Anything at all?

[Nestroy]

Nice to see that there are still Mods (namely Cordovan) online from time to time, i only to close some necro thread.

Sad to see that there is still no reaction from Turbine...

[Ivan_Milic]

Remove decay, its stupid idea.