Guild Renown Changes

[ArkoHighStar]

So if its based on a guild of 6 then my guild of 4 with 2 inactive will have higher decay?

[DocBenway]

So if its based on a guild of 6 then my guild of 4 with 2 inactive will have higher decay?

No because your guild of 4 was decaying as a guild of 10 anyway. 10 was the minimum size used in decay math. (MAX(Modified Account Size,10) +10) * Levelmultiplier.

20 was the smallest number ever resulting from the outer bracket set. No one has ever said why.

[XavierElanor]

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.

[madmaxhunter]

Thank you devs for hearing us. I don't know how much this will help, looks like it still heavily favors small guilds. Guild size was important back when the modern incarnation of guilds were introduced. Now days, with less players, less new players, I don't think it is as much.

My hope is that I can stop worrying about guild level. I don't care if it takes a month to go up a level. I don't want to micro-manage it anymore.

Back when there were many players, many guilds, we had 50 active members, we would amass outside the airship dock to all go on when we got a new ship. We ran around chatting about what should go where. I know those days will never be again, it saddens me that it is lost.

Some think the system should stay the way it is now. I disagree, all of my guildies have jobs, have families, decay has sucked the fun out of guilds.

Hopefully this will help, time will tell.

[bbqzor]

There were only two changes relating to Guilds and renown made at this time as mentioned in Tolero's post. Nothing else should be different, and we'd like to know if it is.

Let me begin by saying this is a positive direction... regardless of the impact this change has (which I think will be beneficial but even if not), simply working to come up with a better system is a good-faith decision.

Now my question: There are effectively two penalties for removing a player from a guild. One, you lose a percentage of their earned renown; and two, they count towards guild size for a month. As guild size is now no longer used to calculate decay (if I am reading Toleros post right), I presume your post refers solely to the first case, losing a percentage of their renown.

So basically, people who never log in, or log in once a year, who are removed in the current environment, can be done so safely? If they have a zero to nominal renown value, losing a percentage of it is very small, and the change in guild size will have no adverse effect? If so this would be quite a positive feature for many guilds looking to clean up inactive rosters but previously paralyzed to inaction from the potential size penalties.

Second question, any hints as to what sized decay we should be looking at by level? I ask because we had the old formula, and were able to go look and see if it was working correctly. As it stands now, with decay based solely on guild level, it would be a simple matter to verify it was working correctly if you gave us a chart/formula to reference. Perhaps just the 10 level benchmarks, like telling us its set to 5k/day at 30, 10k/day at 40 etc (those are totally made up values but you get the idea).

In other words, it would be helpful to know what we should be seeing, so we can offer feedback in regards to both what is actually happening, and how well balanced what should be happening feels. Obviously posters from all guild levels could compare renown values and decipher this, but providing it as is simply saves everyone a lot of time and results in more feedback, in a quicker timeframe. Thanks

Please consider other ways to get renown. For example, a varying amount for certain accomplishments like achieving level cap, completing an epic elite quest, completing a raid, or finishing an epic destiny. Perhaps upgrading an epic item, a green steel, an alchemical, a dragon armor. The idea would be that building effective characters and accomplishing some “renowned” signifies your guild’s success. Moreso than mindless chest farming.

I just wanted to say, I had never considered adding a "renown gain" to successful crafting recipes, experience totals, or (if I may suggest) favor totals. But thats a really good idea. Alchemical items, Epic items, perhaps every 1k favor, and Epic Elite raids are certainly good candidates for something like a free Impressive or free Legendary. I mean, they are the sorts of things that would either make you known to the in game npcs from a fluff point of view, or that spawns actual threads on the boards for essentially peer renown now... why not model that into the game? Props on the suggestion, its certainly a keeper in my book.

[HunkyDane]

So, a guild of level 55 with 6 players and a guild of 55 with 100 players both now have 3k renown decay?

If so, yea for big guilds, no need anymore to kick out players.

But for small guilds who as of current rules (old rules) who struggle to remain the same level or to advance, no ease for them?

[Vargouille]

But for small guilds who as of current rules (old rules) who struggle to remain the same level or to advance, no ease for them?

Nothing directly aimed at this situation at this time. We're still looking into possible future changes. Today's change was something we could feasibly try sooner rather than later, and potentially solve one Guild issue we perceived, which was the feeling that some Guild members would need to be kicked for the good of the guild as a whole in order to advance the guild.

[HunkyDane]

Nothing directly aimed at this situation at this time. We're still looking into possible future changes. Today's change was something we could feasibly try sooner rather than later.

Here is a suggestion me and a few friends where discussing the other day, this would be for guilds of all sizes

For every day a guild do not gain any renown, reduce the renown decay by 10% so that after 10 days of no renown gained, a guild would seize to lose renown untill a renown would increae by either kill bonus or loot bonus.

That would benefit guilds of all levels.

[Xezrak]

A tentative thank you for addressing this issue.

Please consider other ways to get renown. For example, a varying amount for certain accomplishments like achieving level cap, completing an epic elite quest, completing a raid, or finishing an epic destiny. Perhaps upgrading an epic item, a green steel, an alchemical, a dragon armor. The idea would be that building effective characters and accomplishing some “renowned” signifies your guild’s success. Moreso than mindless chest farming.

Excellent idea I would love to see this, and I think higher level/difficulty quests should give more renown

[AZgreentea]

A tentative thank you for addressing this issue.

Please consider other ways to get renown. For example, a varying amount for certain accomplishments like achieving level cap, completing an epic elite quest, completing a raid, or finishing an epic destiny. Perhaps upgrading an epic item, a green steel, an alchemical, a dragon armor. The idea would be that building effective characters and accomplishing some “renowned” signifies your guild’s success. Moreso than mindless chest farming.

or Monster Manual achievements.

[djl]

These changes will open it up for a LOT of abuse...

For example, if all having a large guild does is reduce your bonuses there is no reason at all to not "mass invite" people and then boot them after a certain amount of time.

Assuming I am understanding everything correctly, the way things will work now:

In a six-man guild, each person gains the work of three people because you get 300% bonus to renown. So, with a large guild all you need are 18 people who pull their weight and the rest of the guild can be slackers who bring in very little each day and it will still come out way ahead of a small guild.

All this will do is change things where there is no benefit to having a small guild anymore, and you'll have a bunch of really large, really awful guilds.

[Postumus]

These changes will open it up for a LOT of abuse...

For example, if all having a large guild does is reduce your bonuses there is no reason at all to not "mass invite" people and then boot them after a certain amount of time.

Assuming I am understanding everything correctly, the way things will work now:

In a six-man guild, each person gains the work of three people because you get 300% bonus to renown. So, with a large guild all you need are 18 people who pull their weight and the rest of the guild can be slackers who bring in very little each day and it will still come out way ahead of a small guild.

All this will do is change things where there is no benefit to having a small guild anymore, and you'll have a bunch of really large, really awful guilds.

Why would they kick anyone if there is no benefit to do so? Just to be evil?

I honestly think that would be rare.

[LeoLionxxx]

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'.

[HunkyDane]

'after 2 monthes, removing the player will not cause additional decay of loss of earned renown'

/signed

[Anthios888]

'after 2 monthes, removing the player will not cause additional decay of loss of earned renown'

/signed

Great idea. As a leader of a large guild, it is important to maintain guild continuity.
If someone was not in the guild for a long time, and then takes a long break, and would not be a true "guildie" if they returned to the game, why leave them on the roster?

[FranOhmsford]

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'.

This ^

I'm sorry but people do leave the game - Why should we have to keep them in our guilds forever just so we don't lose what renown they did earn?
It all adds up.

As for the suggestion about other ways to earn renown - I notice it didn't mention explorers - I am one of those people who likes to max Slayer Zones {But I get virtually zero renown for doing this - WHY?}.

[djl]

Why would they kick anyone if there is no benefit to do so? Just to be evil?

I honestly think that would be rare.

There is no penalty for doing so now, so there is nothing in place to encourage people to get along. Someone ****es someone else off who is an officer or friends with an officer then BAM, that person is gone.

Also, in the process of mass-recruiting, you will pick up a lot of really bad, really annoying players. You leech their renown til 85 and get your big boat, and then send all of them packing so that you'll have your core of people you actually enjoy being around. You can have your cake and eat it too.

I know a lot of large "legitimate" guilds will greatly appreciate this change, but I think there would have been better ways to fix it that simply remove guild size from the formula.

[Xandrel]

Nice start... but it doenst even come close to clutting through the butter

Give us a way to distinguish characters!

Whos character belongs to what account, this in its self is a mess.

A gazelion characters without knowing who own which one. We have to keep a seperate webpage just for this and it is a pain, when it should be something we can see in-game.

[SirValentine]

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.

Wow, this change is huge.

You know, those same renown threads on the forums had prompted me, just last week, to run an exhaustive mathematical analysis of guild renown decay. I had reached my conclusions, and I had planned to clean up the presentation and post it this week. But plugging in this change for analysis was easy to do.

The old system, though primarily based on ACTIVITY (actually pulling renown from chests, end rewards, etc.), DID have a bias for and against certain sizes of guilds. It turns out the ideal guild size for reaching a high level was 11 accounts. Very tiny guilds (4 or fewer accounts) were worst off, and the worst possible size other than very tiny, was exactly 50 accounts. As you increased accounts from 4 to 11, your guild level potential rose rapidly, then decreases moderatly from 11 accounts up to 50, then increased again very slowly from 50 up to 1000. A guild size of 11 had about twice the anti-decay guild renown earning power of a size 50 guild.

This new system...well, I think if you leave it in place long, you will see many, many high-level, including level 100, guilds. The boost that large guilds get from this is incredible.

Here, let me give some concrete examples:

First...a guild of 10 or fewer accounts will see no change.

Next...consider a 50-account guild, previously the absolute worst off for decay. This change gives them 3 times the decay-fighting power. Here's some benchmarks on how the level decay would previously have stalled them at corresponds to their new such level:

 
Previous   New
81         100 (max level)
76          93 (max ship amenities)
68          85 (largest ship)
62          80 (2nd largest ship)
56          70 (large augment slots)
51          63 (most good ship buffs)

And that's just for a 50-account guild. Larger guilds are even better off. A hypothetical 1000-account guild that could never hold on to level 47 before will easily hit level 100 now.

Someone mentioned in this thread that decay is supposed to fight the "Korthos Army"-invite-anyone guild. Well, with this change, it won't. There is now no reason not to fill your guild roles to the maximum they hold, from a renown point of view. Non-renown-productive players, while still not helping, no longer actively hurt AT ALL. If they earn even a tiny bit of renown, you're better off than without them.

If this change sticks, guilds won't need to at all to be selective on the basis of player activity. And I predict there will be many more very large and very high-level guilds.

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.

I have to say, except maybe adding a few extra days to a guild's initial climb, this change is pretty irrelevant. Large guilds WILL completely dominate under the first change you mentioned above.

[Nysrock]

I read this as meaning the decay numbers will be:
Level decay
26 44
27 49
28 55
29 61
30 68
31 149
32 164
33 180
34 197
35 214
36 350
37 380
38 412
39 445
40 480
41 827
42 889
43 954
44 1,022
45 1,094
46 1,460
47 1,557
48 1,659
49 1,765
50 1,875
51 2,388
52 2,531
53 2,680
54 2,834
55 2,995
56 3,688
57 3,889
58 4,097
59 4,313
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
77 17,577
78 18,270
79 18,982
80 19,712
81 25,509
82 26,466
83 27,446
84 28,450
85 29,478
86 33,075
87 34,242
88 35,437
89 36,658
90 37,908
91 42,200
92 43,607
93 45,044
94 46,513
95 48,013
96 53,084
97 54,760
98 56,472
99 58,218
100 67,500

.

These numbers still seem a bit high. According to the guild renown calculator, my level 64 guild of 6 should only have 5872 decay a day and not 7340. So which number is correct?