Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

Inactives still on roster are not counted as Decay after 30 days. Hence they sit on roster forever cuz there is a Double penalty for kicking them.

.... lol .. what a horrible complex system.

The new formula is much better but obviouly not a permenant solution.

Leaving the inactives in the guild forever is not an option for large guilds. The inactives count toward the guild size cap so if large guilds leave them in the guild forever, they eventually hit the guild size cap and are FORCED to kick them, and eat the double penalty, or they can't ever invite any new players or alts.

[theslimshady]

Are you still beating this dead horse? I already acknowledged several times that I knew a 1000 person guild did not exist. I was showing the range within the allowable boundaries of 1 to 1000. Since the decay is fixed, the math works the same for a guild of 200 as well and I showed that math.

I have no doubts - a 1000 account guild does not exist - we know 1000 character guilds exist but nobody has really put out a poll to find the largest guild by account as far as I know. The math still works with the actual account values from various large guilds.

i beleave that be my guild 200+ modified accounts we crested at 76level and are always at 1000 toon cap

[Blaze-Of-Glory]

ideas taken liberally from previous posters where i liked them, added some bugbears of my own to the mix

• Link Guild Reknown earned directly to quest, explorer, monster manual or slayer XP earned. Add a ransack timer that resets like the raid ones - for both xp and renknown to reset amount you earn - make raids earn more reknown
  Reward players for playing the game. Prevent endless farming at level - but don't penalise level capped characters forever. - small / medium guild multiplier
• Keep the character Boot penalty but decrease it 5% for each week of inactivity - also penalise the guild bank a percentage of players contribution with similar decay
  Players contribute reknown and real money/plat to a guild - don't take advantage of goodwill
• Introduce a one off recruitment reknown cost based on character level modified by guild level - 1 tr= level 20, 2+ tr = level 25 - for instance no recruitement penalty for guild sizes 1-10.
  To discourage guild recruitment spamming. encourage hiring new blood over poaching players
• Limit each officer to x boots and x recruits per week
  To discourage guild recruitment spamming and prevent rogue officers booting everyone
• Scrap guild reknown decay altogether - replace with a one off cost per account (for each guild) when they log in their first guilded character each week.
  No login of a guild character that day = no penalty for that guild. Each week because people log in to chat, check autions and other stuff not just play
  ** Alternatively make each ship amenity cost reknown to use - pay only for what you use **
• Allow guild reknown to be earned by killing opponents in pvp, collecting x amount of ingredients in quests, challenges and events like crystal cove and maybar
  to get the guild officers off your back about reknown when you are doing other stuff in game apart from running quests and raids
• Make guild ameneties have a base reknown cost as well as plat cose - ddo store ones can be 0 reknown cost - small guilds pay less - fficers pay for guild amenities from the guild bank - the same one that buys the airships - instead of from their own pockets
  so everyone in guild can contribute - can have store item similar to diamonds to buy gold seal items - anyone guild member can donate to bank - you need to keep reknown coming in to keep the ship stocked up.= even at level 100
• Make it so there is an unlock before a player (aka officer) can purchase an amenity - works same way as patron rewards
  reward acheivement not just reknown farming
• Have some rewards for top guilds of the week - based for instance on average reknown earned per week on server for top 5 active players that week, most kills in pvp that week, most ingredients gathered or whatever - for instance zero cost amenity
  to introduce some competitiveness for those that want it - active players to even the playing field - top x to not penalise small guilds
• Cap reknown earned gained each day to 3 guild levels worth - once you hit the max you dont gain or lose any reknown that day
• Cap reknown lost each day to 3 guild levels worth - having a bad day
• Introduce an inactivity level decay for guilds - when there are no active players at all in the guild that month you loose a level.
  to encourage active play - nothing lasts forever
• Change the ui for guilds to show progress towards max/min level gain/loss.
  show net reknown earned for each character
  show player against character with sort
  show donations to guild bank for each player
• Change adventure log to show timers for quest reknown/xp reset and number of repetitions
• Introduce new level above leader of founder who can also promote to officer
  founder can never be booted from guild unless deleted or hands over title - in which case leader is new founder or person selected at handover
  leader will automatically demote to officer after 3 months of inactivity - to avoid leader/successor cycling
  successor will automatically demote to officer after 3 months of inactivity
  highest reknown earning officer automatically becomes new leader when leader demoted if no successor
• Dont allow guild leaders or founders to disband guilds that have at least one active character that month. They quit or handover like anyone else.
  They aren't the only ones with an investment in the guild

[Gremmlynn]

By the same logic:

The people in large guilds is not the same thing as the large guilds. While the people in large guilds may temporarily help someone looking for a PUG group, so would any other random group of players. The fact that they are in a large guild makes no difference in that situation, unless at the end of the PUG a guild invite is offered.

Unless that large guild has a stated "save X spots for pugs" policy, the fact the people in the guild may pug in no way makes the guild itself an asset to the community as a whole as they would be doing that anyway.

See?

The logic of opinion is just opinion.

I would like to know what a guild is, if not its membership? If that membership as a whole, regardless of size, is an asset or detriment to the community then that is what they are. They are an asset or a detriment, the only difference is numbers of individual assets or detriments under the same guild tag umbrella.

True, but in my experience, small guilds are small because they don't invite at the end of the PUG, while most large guilds offer that invite before the PUG even starts.

[Gremmlynn]

With regards to #3, my understanding is that a guild doesn't lose any renown for kicking someone that is inactive for more than a month. This is why most large guilds kick those that are inactive after a month. I could be wrong, but this is my understanding.

The inactives that were kicked do count towards your decay formula for some time after that - but I am not sure on the exact amount of time. This last point was under the old system and that doens't really matter under the new system.

Active or inactive, it's 25% of the gross renown the character earned. Which is one of the flaws with the system, as given enough time even 10% of gross renown taken from leaving on good terms could amount to more than the total renown a guild possesses from an even moderately active due to guild renown decaying and personal renown totals not.

[Tshober]

ideas taken liberally from previous posters where i liked them, added some bugbears of my own to the mix

• Link Guild Reknown earned directly to quest, explorer, monster manual or slayer XP earned. Add a ransack timer that resets like the raid ones - for both xp and renknown to reset amount you earn - make raids earn more reknown
  Reward players for playing the game. Prevent endless farming at level - but don't penalise level capped characters forever. - small / medium guild multiplier
• Keep the character Boot penalty but decrease it 5% for each week of inactivity - also penalise the guild bank a percentage of players contribution with similar decay
  Players contribute reknown and real money/plat to a guild - don't take advantage of goodwill
• Introduce a one off recruitment reknown cost based on character level modified by guild level - 1 tr= level 20, 2+ tr = level 25 - for instance no recruitement penalty for guild sizes 1-10.
  To discourage guild recruitment spamming. encourage hiring new blood over poaching players
• Limit each officer to x boots and x recruits per week
  To discourage guild recruitment spamming and prevent rogue officers booting everyone
• Scrap guild reknown decay altogether - replace with a one off cost per account (for each guild) when they log in their first guilded character each week.
  No login of a guild character that day = no penalty for that guild. Each week because people log in to chat, check autions and other stuff not just play
• Allow guild reknown to be earned by killing opponents in pvp, collecting x amount of ingredients in quests, challenges and events like crystal cove and maybar
  to get the guild officers off your back about reknown when you are doing other stuff in game apart from running quests and raids
• Make guild ameneties have a base reknown cost as well as plat cose - ddo store ones can be 0 reknown cost - small guilds pay less - fficers pay for guild amenities from the guild bank - the same one that buys the airships - instead of from their own pockets
  so everyone in guild can contribute - can have store item similar to diamonds to buy gold seal items - anyone guild member can donate to bank - you need to keep reknown coming in to keep the ship stocked up.= even at level 100
• Make it so there is an unlock before a player (aka officer) can purchase an amenity - works same way as patron rewards
  reward acheivement not just reknown farming
• Have some rewards for top guilds of the week - based for instance on average reknown earned per week on server for top 5 active players that week, most kills in pvp that week, most ingredients gathered or whatever - for instance zero cost amenity
  to introduce some competitiveness for those that want it - active players to even the playing field - top x to not penalise small guilds
• Cap reknown earned gained each day to 3 guild levels worth - once you hit the max you dont gain or lose any reknown that day
• Cap reknown lost each day to 3 guild levels worth - having a bad day
• Introduce an inactivity level decay for guilds - when there are no active players at all in the guild that month you loose a level.
  to encourage active play - nothing lasts forever
• Change the ui for guilds to show progress towards max/min level gain/loss.
  show net reknown earned for each character
  show player against character with sort
  show donations to guild bank for each player
• Change adventure log to show timers for quest reknown/xp reset and number of repetitions
• Introduce new level above leader of founder who can also promote to officer
  founder can never be booted from guild unless deleted or hands over title - in which case leader is new founder or person selected at handover
  leader will automatically demote to officer after 3 months of inactivity - to avoid leader/successor cycling
  successor will automatically demote to officer after 3 months of inactivity
  highest reknown earning officer automatically becomes new leader when leader demoted if no successor
• Dont allow guild leaders or founders to disband guilds that have at least one active character that month. They quit or handover like anyone else.
  They aren't the only ones with an investment in the guild

I liked most of these.

[DocBenway]

True, but in my experience, small guilds are small because they don't invite at the end of the PUG, while most large guilds offer that invite before the PUG even starts.

This type of experience might also be a consequence of renown.
My small guild always liked to pug at least once but preferred 3 times or more with someone, just to be sure they were us and we were them, so to speak. With the onset of renown and slotted items, 2 things happened.

1. New players were in much more of a hurry to get guilded, because a) guilds get buffs and b) they looted the best thing they've seen so far, and they can't use it because it is minimum guild level 1 due to a slot.

2. We decided we had to learn how this decay and size stuff worked before level 25. But more importantly, to get to 25 we admittedly pugged much less due to wanting to make sure we got renown that we didn't know how dropped/worked/who got it. This was temporary when we discovered the math of the system and its wanting us to boot the fellow who was last on the night before his first chemo treatment to progress "more efficiently".

Now it took a helluva long time to get to 25 due to initial implementation not having any small bonus. Then the period of fluctuating bonus that increased or reduced depending on how many of that account's characters had logged on that day. So we were slow on the uptake with the intricacies of the system because we figure with all this time taken to progress, we had lots of time to learn.

When we did learn the math, we said "Nuts to this, we're going bowling!" and just played like we always do.

The slow progression in a system imposed on pre-existing guild has been a detriment, in folks that were inactive admitting they were reluctant to come back because, on the off chance they didn't stay around a lot, they would hurt their friend's progress.

My guild is not all guilds and I do not doubt your experiences, just drilling a peek hole through the fence so you can see my grass is no more green than yours. Or something.

[Blaze-Of-Glory]

I have another suggestion - haven't read the whole thread....
along the lines of scrap reknown decay altogether - make ameneties cost reknown to purcahse and cost reknown to use - no more worries about active players. keep penalty for early boot and add penalty for recruit. more overhead than login cost but you pay for what you use only. scales with guild size because more players using = more players paying

[Zargarx]

If Turbine is looking for an easy formula for now can just make a small adjustment to the current one

i.e.: (10+Min(10,A/2))*Decay
A = i.e. active within the last week
This gives a small boost for smaller guilds and capping the decay for medium/large guilds.

Examples.
A = 20 (and higher) - no change to current
A = 10 requires 75% the renown as current
A = 4 requires 60% the renown as current

[Chaos000]

I showed one example with the theoretical maximum because someone else used the theoretical maximum in their post shortly before mine. All my other examples used 100 or 200 accounts. You are using this to discredit the math, but the math was right on and whether you use 100 or 200 in the example, the requirements of small guilds are much higher on a per account basis than large guilds.

I'm not discrediting the math believe it or not. I'm discrediting the unrealistic numbers proposed for a large guild in the math. In order to apply a fair per-account comparison, one would have to compare two realistic guilds with the same activity level in terms of renown gain.

If we are using casual guilds as a comparison you have to factor in accounts not contributing to renown gain for an accurate assessment of how much renown will be required of each account actually gaining renown on a given day. (for example: 2 active 4 casual 6 total with 300% renown bonus vs. 67 active 133 casual 200 total with 0% renown bonus)

If we are using hyper active guilds as a real comparison of the system still favoring large guilds taking advantage of their max potential per account per day under the old system, the theoretical maximum of the largest guild cannot exceed an existing guild currently at lvl 100 with the largest number of accounts. The smallest theoretical minimum must also follow the same rule. I don't think this is unreasonable.

[slarden]

I'm not discrediting the math believe it or not. I'm discrediting the unrealistic numbers proposed for a large guild in the math. In order to apply a fair per-account comparison, one would have to compare two realistic guilds with the same activity level in terms of renown gain.

If we are using casual guilds as a comparison you have to factor in accounts not contributing to renown gain for an accurate assessment of how much renown will be required of each account actually gaining renown on a given day. (for example: 2 active 4 casual 6 total with 300% renown bonus vs. 67 active 133 casual 200 total with 0% renown bonus)

If we are using hyper active guilds as a real comparison of the system still favoring large guilds taking advantage of their max potential per account per day under the old system, the theoretical maximum of the largest guild cannot exceed an existing guild currently at lvl 100 with the largest number of accounts. The smallest theoretical minimum must also follow the same rule. I don't think this is unreasonable.

Assumptions:
2 out of 6 are active in small guild
67 out of 200 are active in large guild
small guild earns 300% bonus (so I will assume 2 are earning the equivalent of 6)

Under the old system

Small guild must earn renown for 20 to cover decay
2 people earning renown to cover 20. With x3 bonus this is like 6 people earning renown for 20
6/20 = 30% renown earning capacity which means they must generate 333% of their individual requirement to cover decay for the rest of the guild.

Large guild must earn renown for 210 to cover decay

67 people earning renown to cover 210. With no bonus it remains 67 out of 210 which is 31.9% renown earning capacity, which means they must generate 313% of their individual requirement to cover decay for the rest of the guild.

The 300% guild bonus was in part to make up for the fact that a 6 person guild has to cover decay for 20 under both the new and the old formula. It also has to do with the fact that leveling requirements are the same for all guilds so small guilds need more on a per account basis. Small guilds never had an advantage on a per account basis under the old system. This doesn't even take into account that the small guild in your example must earn 11.11x more renown per member to level up vs. the large guild in your example. This factors in the 300% small guild bonus.

Under no circumstance did small guilds ever have an "advantage" on a per account basis. The road was always much harder and now under the new system it is even dramatically harder relative to the requirements of a large guild.

Under the new system the 2 people must still make up for decay based on 20 while the large guild's 67 only have to make up decay for 20 (small guild must earn 313% more renown per account even with the 300% small guild bonus while the large guild only needs to earn 30% while the small guild still needs to 1111% of the renown to level up per account)

As I stated before I don't believe the hard core large guild could ever exist because there are just too few people that fall into that category. While all hard core guilds are small guilds, not all small guilds are hardcore guilds in fact this percentage has to be well under 1% just based on the number of small guilds I see and the very few high level guilds out there.

What I fail to see is why some of the people in large guilds think small casual guilds have no place in DDO to the extent that they make the nasty comments that we've seen. They are actively lobbying against giving small casual guilds a break even though the math clearly demonstrates the need for it.

Some people just feel more of a sense of belonging in a small guild than they would in a large guild. Consider that some people may be more likely to continue playing DDO if they are able to part of a small group of online friends (whether they new each other in real life or not).

It would make sense for Turbine to make the system more equitable for small casual guilds, but I have low expectations for it based on the way they've worded their responses and the fact that they chose a test period with atypical activity.

One other Note: All my previous examples included the small guild bonus in the calculation. Under assumptions you will see the renown figure I used for heroic deeds was higher for small guild than a large guild.

[Tshober]

Assumptions:
2 out of 6 are active in small guild
67 out of 200 are active in large guild
small guild earns 300% bonus (so I will assume 2 are earning the equivalent of 6)

Under the old system

Small guild must earn renown for 20 to cover decay
2 people earning renown to cover 20. With x3 bonus this is like 6 people earning renown for 20
6/20 = 30% renown earning capacity which means they must generate 333% of their individual requirement to cover decay for the rest of the guild.

Large guild must earn renown for 210 to cover decay

67 people earning renown to cover 210. With no bonus it remains 67 out of 210 which is 31.9% renown earning capacity, which means they must generate 313% of their individual requirement to cover decay for the rest of the guild.

The 300% guild bonus was in part to make up for the fact that a 6 person guild has to cover decay for 20 under both the new and the old formula. It also has to do with the fact that leveling requirements are the same for all guilds so small guilds need more on a per account basis. Small guilds never had an advantage on a per account basis under the old system. This doesn't even take into account that the small guild in your example must earn 11.11x more renown per member to level up vs. the large guild in your example. This factors in the 300% small guild bonus.

Under no circumstance did small guilds ever have an "advantage" on a per account basis. The road was always much harder and now under the new system it is even dramatically harder relative to the requirements of a large guild.

Under the new system the 2 people must still make up for decay based on 20 while the large guild's 67 only have to make up decay for 20 (small guild must earn 313% more renown per account even with the 300% small guild bonus while the large guild only needs to earn 30% while the small guild still needs to 1111% of the renown to level up per account)

As I stated before I don't believe the hard core large guild could ever exist because there are just too few people that fall into that category. While all hard core guilds are small guilds, not all small guilds are hardcore guilds in fact this percentage has to be well under 1% just based on the number of small guilds I see and the very few high level guilds out there.

What I fail to see is why some of the people in large guilds think small casual guilds have no place in DDO to the extent that they make the nasty comments that we've seen. They are actively lobbying against giving small casual guilds a break even though the math clearly demonstrates the need for it.

Some people just feel more of a sense of belonging in a small guild than they would in a large guild. Consider that some people may be more likely to continue playing DDO if they are able to part of a small group of online friends (whether they new each other in real life or not).

It would make sense for Turbine to make the system more equitable for small casual guilds, but I have low expectations for it based on the way they've worded their responses and the fact that they chose a test period with atypical activity.

One other Note: All my previous examples included the small guild bonus in the calculation. Under assumptions you will see the renown figure I used for heroic deeds was higher for small guild than a large guild.

Your example, like almost every example I have seen, is too simplistic. For one thing, the large guild will ALWAYS have a much higher recent departure count than the small guild. The large guild will be FORCED to kick its inactive members to make room for new players because of the guild size cap and so incurs the double renown penalty for most of the inactive members. The small guild has no such constraint and can retain inactives forever, avoiding the double renown penalty completely.

But more fundamentally, I would contend that large guilds are much more likely to have a high ratio of casual/social players to very active players. Of course, I have no solid data to prove this contention, but it just seems logical to me. Only the devs have the data to say if my contention is true or not. But if it is true, then comparing large and small guilds with near identical ratios of casual/social players to very active players is misleading because those would not represent typical guilds of each size, but rather extremes. Again, only the devs have the data to say what the ratio is for typical guilds of each size and whether any example we can come up with is generally representative or very extreme.

For these reasons, simple mathematical examples like this are little more than speculation with no real data to back them up at all.

[slarden]

Your example, like almost every example I have seen, is too simplistic. For one thing, the large guild will ALWAYS have a much higher recent departure count than the small guild. The large guild will be FORCED to kick its inactive members to make room for new players because of the guild size cap and so incurs the double renown penalty for most of the inactive members. The small guild has no such constraint and can retain inactives forever, avoiding the double renown penalty completely.

But more fundamentally, I would contend that large guilds are much more likely to have a high ratio of casual/social players to very active players. Of course, I have no solid data to prove this contention, but it just seems logical to me. Only the devs have the data to say if my contention is true or not. But if it is true, then comparing large and small guilds with near identical ratios of casual/social players to very active players is misleading because those would not represent typical guilds of each size, but rather extremes. Again, only the devs have the data to say what the ratio is for typical guilds of each size and whether any example we can come up with is generally representative or very extreme.

For these reasons, simple mathematical examples like this are little more than speculation with no real data to back them up at all.

The math is not simplistic, it is only dealing with known and non-speculative data. The problem with your assumptions like all assumptions is that each guild is unique and not all large and small guilds will fit your assumptions.

The assumption about casual /social players is flat out wrong. I am sure there are many guilds that are made up of 100% social / casual gamers an they have no chance of even making level 40. I know some people in those guilds.

Your argument is that you want to include speculative assumptions into the math. The data isn't available so all that would lead to is people reworking the #s until it matched what they wanted.

I am sure that a level 70 small guild is likely made up of a lower % of casual gamers than a level 70 large guild beause the requirements are so much higher - that is the only way they can ever possibly get to 70. The math proves that without any possibility of debate.

What you continue to ignore is all the people running around in small guilds below level 50. I see many more of those folks than I see people in high level guilds. I can't say I ever saw a large guild below 60 and certainly under the proposed system that would be nearly impossible.

I don't see how you can say that a small guild having to cover for the decay of 20 vs. a large guild of 200 covering the decay of 20 is a fair situation. It is not. Not to mention that the small guild needs 1111% more renown per person to reach the next level.

I am glad Turbine is helping large guilds - but I think it's ridiculous to say that is necessary to help large guilds but absolutely no change should be made for small guilds simply because a fraction of 1% of small guilds are high level guilds. A very large percentage of small guilds are below the lowest level large guild on Sarlona. Your assumptions fail to account for that fact. Again the devs will have that information and can easily determine the percentage of small guilds on Sarlona below the lowest level guild with at least 100 active members. It's a simple thing to query I would suspect.

[Eladrin]

I will add - I think their should be no renown penalty for booting people that have been inactive for a long time - for example 90 days.

This already exists.

When kicking out an inactive member, you receive:

Full Penalty: Member was inactive for less than 30 days.
Reduced Penalty: Member was inactive for 30 days or more, but less than 180 days.
No Penalty: Member was inactive for 180 days or more.

[Hordo]

This already exists.

When kicking out an inactive member, you receive:

Full Penalty: Member was inactive for less than 30 days.
Reduced Penalty: Member was inactive for 30 days or more, but less than 180 days.
No Penalty: Member was inactive for 180 days or more.

Are you sure that's working? A few months ago we cleaned out a whole bunch of 6,7,8-month last-time logged in toons, and made sure it was the whole account that was cleaned and that all toons were in the same date-range of last-time logged in and we took a whooping in terms of lost renown.

[TPICKRELL]

Are you sure that's working? A few months ago we cleaned out a whole bunch of 6,7,8-month last-time logged in toons, and made sure it was the whole account that was cleaned and that all toons were in the same date-range of last-time logged in and we took a whooping in terms of lost renown.

Could the accounts you kicked have had a toon on another server or not in your guild who had been logged on and thus the account wasn't inactive even though all the toons in your guild were? That's caused my guild issues in the past.

[madmaxhunter]

This already exists.

When kicking out an inactive member, you receive:

Full Penalty: Member was inactive for less than 30 days.
Reduced Penalty: Member was inactive for 30 days or more, but less than 180 days.
No Penalty: Member was inactive for 180 days or more.

No renown loss maybe, but I know you still get the recent departure penalty. I only booted the players that were more than one year absent.

[slarden]

Are you sure that's working? A few months ago we cleaned out a whole bunch of 6,7,8-month last-time logged in toons, and made sure it was the whole account that was cleaned and that all toons were in the same date-range of last-time logged in and we took a whooping in terms of lost renown.

Could the issue here be that while the character was inactive, but the account was still active? I know alot of people make a character on a new server to farm renown for TP. Once they get it they likely never bother deleting the character and probably never use it again. We made toons on other servers when the stone of exp was available and we kept getting random invites from guids - almost to the point of driving us crazy we received so many.

If you recruit a character called "Favordude", they likely will be active for 2 days and then never again.

[Seikojin]

This already exists.

When kicking out an inactive member, you receive:

Full Penalty: Member was inactive for less than 30 days.
Reduced Penalty: Member was inactive for 30 days or more, but less than 180 days.
No Penalty: Member was inactive for 180 days or more.

Man that is a long time. I think it should be:

When kicking out an inactive member, you receive:

Full Penalty: Member was inactive for less than 30 days.
Reduced Penalty: Member was inactive for 30 days or more, but less than 60 days.
No Penalty: Member was inactive for 60 days or more.

2 months is a looong time in the mmo world.

[Hendrik]

Are you sure that's working? A few months ago we cleaned out a whole bunch of 6,7,8-month last-time logged in toons, and made sure it was the whole account that was cleaned and that all toons were in the same date-range of last-time logged in and we took a whooping in terms of lost renown.

I have had the same experience.

Lost two full Guild Levels.





I would gladly test this, but hesitant to loose more renown...