Guild Renown Changes

[Vargouille]

We are aware that the changes have been reverted. Don't take this to mean that we are intending any long term reversal out of this change, though ultimately the long term solution may end up being different. The previously stated goals remain the same for now.

We're looking into possible mishaps where some guilds may have experienced extra decay as well.

Sorry for the lack of communication. Busy week last week.

[theslimshady]

thanks for the info

[slarden]

I don't see a problem with large guilds levelling faster; they have more members, after all, and more active players per day.

The only math I will not accept is fake-math - like someones post about number of guilds, vs number of responses to the leader-poll

Someone who had not even read the thread, or they'd know that most of the leaders DID have suggestions as to changes, or specific complaints.

I will not accept fake math; the other math, I don't have a problem with. To me, that is natural - a large guild will level faster. It just makes sense, to me.

Now - what you are forgetting is the fine print... MORE CHANGES ARE IN STORE - perhaps some will address your perceived problems?

I think this pretty much sums up the entire argument. The issue isn't that big guilds are disadvantaged. This issue is that you want large guilds to have huge advantages.

I think DDO should support multiple play styles and not require all people to join mega guilds where they are going to get lost. I have people from big guilds asking me to help them flag, or run an epic or farm for an item all the time. You make it seem like only big guilds have a place in DDO. I don't agree with this and think Turbine should implement a fair guild system for all unlike the new proposed system which makes small guilds like mine obsolete.

The problems I mentioned are not perceived. It's simple math which you can see a few posts above. I don' think any new system should be rolled out until these issues are addressed.

[Dirac]

We are aware that the changes have been reverted. Don't take this to mean that we are intending any long term reversal out of this change, though ultimately the long term solution may end up being different. The previously stated goals remain the same for now.

We're looking into possible mishaps where some guilds may have experienced extra decay as well.

Sorry for the lack of communication. Busy week last week.

Thanks for the update. Understandable. Good luck.

[Chaos000]

I see no reason to argue this point. I'd like a dev to re-visit the topic, but after this many arguments back and forth, it'll take them days to get through the thread.

An easy determination would be for the Devs to check how frequently mega guilds hit the ransack cap after they adjusted decay based on guild level instead of per account.

The "zmog! their progression will be too fast!" will be weighed against actual metrics during the change.

I'm ok with smaller guilds getting a boost on their renown gain however that boost should be assessed from the guild with the maximum guild size bonus against the minimum guild size (51?) that nets 0 guild size bonus to get a conservative adjustment.

[Spoonwelder]

You are forcing those of us in small guilds to recruit hundreds of people into our guild. We don't want to do that - not be cause we are elitists or wanting to exclude people - we just want to group with our friends. All of us were new players when we joined the guild.

It's wrong to take the small guild option away from casual gamers. You are acknowledging what we already know -the new system renders small guilds obsolete and will require us to either recruit massive amounts of people or disband our guild and join a large gulid.

We worked hard to build up our small guild - always taking renown as and reward - taking elxirs from the DDO store. Will that money be refunded since small guilds will be obsolete under the new system? I hope so.

Sorry to come back to this debate so late but I was checking if there was any commentary on the roll back of the change and noted this little argument.

My issue with what you stated: before the change - your small guild got hit by renown at worst the same as it is hit with the change. How does the change in anyway affect you aside from in a comparative basis, which btw existed before the change as well? Ie. there were large high level, small high level and medium high level guilds before the change that any of you members could have jumped to if that was there hearts desire. The situation has not changed for small guilds except for the fact that it is comparatively easier for medium and large guilds to level up now.

Does that need to be corrected? To me this question is entirely separate from whether the current formula change is better or worse than the system in place before the change.

Additionaly the change really only upped the spot where guilds will hit a wall (without recruiting or changing tactics). Ie. my guild was stuck at 70/71 ish....with the new formula we can reach 85....in about 2-3 years....assuming everything stays the same. Will there be some pump and dump guild scams - yes - there will be a few on each server. Nobody is forcing you (and most will recommend against) to join these guilds. Guilds should be about community and they were becoming about seclusion/exclusion.

The problem being solved was that the renown system punished larger guilds with casual players such that they were either being booted or asked nicely to leave AND recruiting was being restricted. .

IMO the change is better, not perfect, but better than the system in place before. I still prefer a system that targets decay on daily activity....ie set players inactive immediately after decay hits then if the account logs in the guildsize number goes up until decay hits again (this would also potentially reduce the impact of the server bounces double hitting guilds with renown).

[Spoonwelder]

We are aware that the changes have been reverted. Don't take this to mean that we are intending any long term reversal out of this change, though ultimately the long term solution may end up being different. The previously stated goals remain the same for now.

We're looking into possible mishaps where some guilds may have experienced extra decay as well.

Sorry for the lack of communication. Busy week last week.

Thanks for the official response.

[Enoach]

During this brief period with the Guild Renown Decay reduction of all guilds having the same amount of decay as a 10 member guild.

The guild that I'm a member of, which is considered a large guild of 100+ active accounts, did not have a significant change in our renown standings. We are still teetering between 70 and 71.

A couple reasons why I believe this is the case:

1. Not enough time given for evaluation
2. Low guild activity during the week (or 3 days guild decay was adjusted) - Guild has many Weekend-warrior types and Week events like this are missed by this crowd.

What it shows for a guild like mine is that we are one of the "Large" guilds filled with "Casual" players. We have are "every day" crowd but even they cannot overcome the daily decay that the guild has reached.

One of the key points to the guild renown formula that only Turbine knows is "What is the expected daily capability to pull renown per player" - not the adjusted small guild bonus amount, but actual amount they use to determine the daily decay off. We can speculate that this amount was seen to be around 500 - 1K (Not just enough for decay, but enough to progress) based on the average daily/adjusted daily for small guilds. I think this works out to roughly 2 to 3 quests a day (depending on luck) - again only speculation based on my own observations/renown averages.

Personally I do not see why size of a guild was even part of the decay. While some will see a reduction in Large Guild Decay as a death Knoll to small guilds, I would point out that many small guilds have a purpose for being small; be it a close nit group based on shared ideals/goals/friendship or to escape the internal politics that eventually creep in to larger organizations.

I just am hoping for a system that rewards guilds not based on their size but their activity; and not just their internal activity but their community activity.

[slarden]

Sorry to come back to this debate so late but I was checking if there was any commentary on the roll back of the change and noted this little argument.

My issue with what you stated: before the change - your small guild got hit by renown at worst the same as it is hit with the change. How does the change in anyway affect you aside from in a comparative basis, which btw existed before the change as well? Ie. there were large high level, small high level and medium high level guilds before the change that any of you members could have jumped to if that was there hearts desire. The situation has not changed for small guilds except for the fact that it is comparatively easier for medium and large guilds to level up now.

Does that need to be corrected? To me this question is entirely separate from whether the current formula change is better or worse than the system in place before the change.

Additionaly the change really only upped the spot where guilds will hit a wall (without recruiting or changing tactics). Ie. my guild was stuck at 70/71 ish....with the new formula we can reach 85....in about 2-3 years....assuming everything stays the same. Will there be some pump and dump guild scams - yes - there will be a few on each server. Nobody is forcing you (and most will recommend against) to join these guilds. Guilds should be about community and they were becoming about seclusion/exclusion.

The problem being solved was that the renown system punished larger guilds with casual players such that they were either being booted or asked nicely to leave AND recruiting was being restricted. .

IMO the change is better, not perfect, but better than the system in place before. I still prefer a system that targets decay on daily activity....ie set players inactive immediately after decay hits then if the account logs in the guildsize number goes up until decay hits again (this would also potentially reduce the impact of the server bounces double hitting guilds with renown).

It is in fact worse than before because now when we gain a level we get a temporary nerf on our renown rewards in chests/end rewards. This will almost ensure that our small guild will lose a level as we need massive renown to cover decay relative to large guilds. When we go down a level and start getting renown normally we will gain a level - our renown will be nerfed and we will lose a level

That change really hurts small guilds as we need so much more renown to cover decay and to gain a level. That is the reason large guilds can easily march to 50 and even 60 and most small gulids never get to 50 in the first place. People always like to use the small 90+ guilds as an example but those are so few as a percentage it's not the right comparison.

I think the change needs to the address the small guild problem before it is implemented. It is not that hard really. Why should a small guild of 4 get the same decay as a guild of 200. If the goal is to make the game more friendly to casual gamers it fails as there are many gamers in small guilds as well.

[Viisari]

What it shows for a guild like mine is that we are one of the "Large" guilds filled with "Casual" players. We have are "every day" crowd but even they cannot overcome the daily decay that the guild has reached.

With the new system your renown decay will a whopping 10805 at level 70. That means each person in the guild would have gain the significant number of about 110 to beat your daily renown decay.

The decay will be basically "not there" for big guilds under the new system.

[slarden]

example with the following assumptions
- guilds start at minimum of level 60
- 30 days in the month
- large guild gets 50 renown per heroic deed and small guild gets 120 per heroic deed with 4 person small guild bonus

UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM

Level 60 guild with 4 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
-Needs to earn 9.45 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
-Needs to earn 47.58 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Level 60 guild with 200 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
- Needs to earn 4.76 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
- Needs to earn 6.60 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

UNDER THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

Level 60 guild with 4 people trying to get to level 61 in one month
-Needs to earn 9.45 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
-Needs to earn 47.58 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Level 60 guild with 200 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
- Needs to earn less than 1/2 of a heroic deed per account per day to cover renown loss
- Needs to earn 2.28 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61 (this is less than 5% of what the 4 person guild must generate)

This example doesn't include the new renown reduction under the new system that will occur when a guild gains 1 level which I think will cause many small guilds to get caught in an infinite non-leveling loop unless they plan around it.

The mythology is that the old system favored small guilds. The math backs up that small guilds have always had to work harder to earn levels than large guilds. Under the new system this gap would get ridiculous and almost make small guilds obsolete. This is not right.

What about the money spent on guild elixirs to level our guild that is now obsolete? Will that be refunded?

With regards to your big guild hitting a wall and the impact of casual gamers. The issue exists for small and large guilds alike, but only small guilds have such a high rewown requirement to level.

[Spoonwelder]

It is in fact worse than before because now when we gain a level we get a temporary nerf on our renown rewards in chests/end rewards. This will almost ensure that our small guild will lose a level as we need massive renown to cover decay relative to large guilds. When we go down a level and start getting renown normally we will gain a level - our renown will be nerfed and we will lose a level

This is a legitimate beef - I actually wondered why this was there in the change but I could see it being very easy for a larger guild to zoom through the lower-mid-levels (no real impact at the higher levels due to the amount needed per level). I think this should be changed such that the reduced gain is after the second level in a day but hits a bit harder. Thus if you go form 50-51 no prob but 50-51-52 you start getting pinched.

That said in the three days the new renown formula was in place did you actually see the effect OR is this supposition based upon speculation of what would happen. I say this because it was a fairly undefined statement from Tolero and I have seen no numbers on what the impact should/would be.

[Bronko]

We are aware that the changes have been reverted. Don't take this to mean that we are intending any long term reversal out of this change, though ultimately the long term solution may end up being different. The previously stated goals remain the same for now.

We're looking into possible mishaps where some guilds may have experienced extra decay as well.

Sorry for the lack of communication. Busy week last week.

Was there a reason for the reversion that you can talk about? Is there a reason that you can't talk about? Or was the reversion an accident?

I ask because I was liking the change but I was hoping for more time to see how it played out and what it might mean in the long term. I there wasn't a reason to revert than I'm more than a little upset.

[jb111]

This change makes a lot of sense. Thanks for considering it

[Gremmlynn]

Are you telling me, with a straight face, that getting 5% xp bonus instead of 4% xp bonus is "a real perk"? While leveling a legend character that translates to something like 10k extra xp if you can keep it up all the time (which you can't).

No, of course you're not telling me that. Because that would be ridiculous.

It's an in-game bonus, which is all it takes to be a real perk. Personally, I'm all for opening levels above 93 (or 100 since our minds find it easier to calculate things in multiples of the number of fingers we have) with all the decay anyone would want for those who feel the game needs a competition for who can spend the most time in game per day. Just no game affecting rewards.

[slarden]

This is a legitimate beef - I actually wondered why this was there in the change but I could see it being very easy for a larger guild to zoom through the lower-mid-levels (no real impact at the higher levels due to the amount needed per level). I think this should be changed such that the reduced gain is after the second level in a day but hits a bit harder. Thus if you go form 50-51 no prob but 50-51-52 you start getting pinched.

That said in the three days the new renown formula was in place did you actually see the effect OR is this supposition based upon speculation of what would happen. I say this because it was a fairly undefined statement from Tolero and I have seen no numbers on what the impact should/would be.

Yes in fact like most people in small guilds I had no idea this change was being considered or implemented. I only found out about it after our guild leveled and we were obviously getting reduced renown.

Our guild went up a level and we were getting very little renown compared to usual. Of our guild only me and one other person were on and we both noticed we weren't getting any renown. After sending /advice in the marketplace about our lack of renown I found out about the change and eventually found this thread. We stayed up much later than usual to get enough renown to cover our decay for the next day. Thankfully the change was reverted the very next day because I doubt we could cover our renown on a weekday with another day of reduced renown. Between the 2 of us we needed to get enough renown to cover 20 people because of the way the decay formula works.

[Gremmlynn]

And in reality large companies also have far, far larger expenses. So in the end, their actual net profit can be low or might even be negative.

Kinda like with guild renown, large guilds have much, much lower net renown gain because they're not efficient.

You're thinking too much about this whole dividing with the number of players business, it's merely a method to make it easier to understand how much actual renown is being pulled when the size of the guild is noted. And you cannot pretend that it's not relevant, as guild renown stands, it' very relevant.

So no, it's not silly at all, you just misunderstand the purpose behind it.

In reality, companies fire or lay off employees based on their performance or the profitability of their responsibilities. Do we really want to make that the basis for guild membership? Do we base who we hang out with in taverns based on how much they drink or how much time they spend there? I know I don't. Because for most of us guilds, everything in DDO for that matter, have a lot more in common with who we hang with at the tavern than that nasty thing most of us have to do in order to be able to afford to go to the tavern.

[Tshober]

During this brief period with the Guild Renown Decay reduction of all guilds having the same amount of decay as a 10 member guild.

The guild that I'm a member of, which is considered a large guild of 100+ active accounts, did not have a significant change in our renown standings. We are still teetering between 70 and 71.

A couple reasons why I believe this is the case:

1. Not enough time given for evaluation
2. Low guild activity during the week (or 3 days guild decay was adjusted) - Guild has many Weekend-warrior types and Week events like this are missed by this crowd.

What it shows for a guild like mine is that we are one of the "Large" guilds filled with "Casual" players. We have are "every day" crowd but even they cannot overcome the daily decay that the guild has reached.
.

Yes, my guild had basically the same experience during the short test. We stayed at level 60 but close to 61. We did not gain even 1 level during the short test period. We are a very large guild with a high number of casual/social players. We have been between 60 & 61 since shortly after Build Your Guild ended.

[Enoach]

With the new system your renown decay will a whopping 10805 at level 70. That means each person in the guild would have gain the significant number of about 110 to beat your daily renown decay.

The decay will be basically "not there" for big guilds under the new system.

I think you missed my point, which was based on my own guilds progress for the days this change was active. During the week day we still did not turn over enough renown to beat the 110 per account decay as the burden of this was on the shoulders of about 1/5 of the membership. I list my reasons why I believe that is the case. During my normal "Time" in game - as I'm one of the daily players, we have a core of 10 people you can be sure to run into 90% of the time. Many of our members are weekend warriors and roving shift workers, so I pointed out that my observation was only based on the Weekday progression. But I also pointed out that we continued to flux between 70 and 71 just as we had before the decay reduction.

Many of the arguments about how much a large guild vs small guild can bring in renown all deal with each active account being able to bring in the same average daily renown. Even as individuals we can all agree that a player that runs more activities that produce renown means that they will bring in more, while those who do more non-renown activities will produce less. Example: 2 hours in game crafting vs 2 hours in game running quests pulling loot and moving to next quest while at level vs XP farmer (1-2 minute completion type that does not pull end reward/chests) - The one questing (not farming XP) will produce more renown.

At 110 renown daily (or 1 quests worth) taken out for 1 month comes out to 3300 a month or approx 30 quests. My guild (again only talking towards mine and not putting any speculation on others) would mean that it is expected for the Weekend warriors to run approx 8 quests each weekend or spend at least 4 to 8 hours in game a week just to make their renown decay goal.

So while I totally understand that small guilds see large guilds potential for earning lots of renown based on the premise that all "Active Members" are actually "Active". I do wonder, if for all intensive purposes if smaller guilds should be able to "manage" a perfect size/activity level to avoid large decay and benefit from 2.4 to 3 times the renown. Personally I still see decay as the problem "across the board", it is not a small vs large guild issue it is a guild activity issue.

In order for Turbine to make any meaningful change they need to evaluate their player base and its "Real" activity at an account level and not base it off of "Powergammer", "Joe Gammer" or "Casual" activity. Until all of these are evaluated the system cannot have a chance to "Balance" the field between Guilds and the desire of Guild members as to size.

[slarden]

I think you missed my point, which was based on my own guilds progress for the days this change was active. During the week day we still did not turn over enough renown to beat the 110 per account decay as the burden of this was on the shoulders of about 1/5 of the membership. I list my reasons why I believe that is the case. During my normal "Time" in game - as I'm one of the daily players, we have a core of 10 people you can be sure to run into 90% of the time. Many of our members are weekend warriors and roving shift workers, so I pointed out that my observation was only based on the Weekday progression. But I also pointed out that we continued to flux between 70 and 71 just as we had before the decay reduction.

Many of the arguments about how much a large guild vs small guild can bring in renown all deal with each active account being able to bring in the same average daily renown. Even as individuals we can all agree that a player that runs more activities that produce renown means that they will bring in more, while those who do more non-renown activities will produce less. Example: 2 hours in game crafting vs 2 hours in game running quests pulling loot and moving to next quest while at level vs XP farmer (1-2 minute completion type that does not pull end reward/chests) - The one questing (not farming XP) will produce more renown.

At 110 renown daily (or 1 quests worth) taken out for 1 month comes out to 3300 a month or approx 30 quests. My guild (again only talking towards mine and not putting any speculation on others) would mean that it is expected for the Weekend warriors to run approx 8 quests each weekend or spend at least 4 to 8 hours in game a week just to make their renown decay goal.

So while I totally understand that small guilds see large guilds potential for earning lots of renown based on the premise that all "Active Members" are actually "Active". I do wonder, if for all intensive purposes if smaller guilds should be able to "manage" a perfect size/activity level to avoid large decay and benefit from 2.4 to 3 times the renown. Personally I still see decay as the problem "across the board", it is not a small vs large guild issue it is a guild activity issue.

In order for Turbine to make any meaningful change they need to evaluate their player base and its "Real" activity at an account level and not base it off of "Powergammer", "Joe Gammer" or "Casual" activity. Until all of these are evaluated the system cannot have a chance to "Balance" the field between Guilds and the desire of Guild members as to size.

And small guilds also have casual gamers and less active gamers. Decay is most certainly the problem here and it is an even bigger problem for small guilds. Our guild has 5 real life friends with only 2 of us being active more than 1-2 days per week. We have also added some extra people that specifically asked to join our guild.

Why not just let small guilds have the same advantages as big gulids. Like big guilds some will lever quicker than others while some will still not move forward much.

I see no reason to make it easier for large guilds and make it harder for small guilds by keeping everything the same for small guilds while adding the new guild reward reduction for 3 days after gaining 1 level.