Guild Renown Changes

[Hendrik]

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.

Good suggestion and +1 for positive contribution.

[slarden]

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.

I agree but I think it should be based on the character not being active rather than the account. Guilds shouldn't lose renown for booting an invactive character - how are they supposed to know the person has active characters on another server?

[Seikojin]

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 like this system as well, but it definitely would have to be tested.

[Ebondevil]

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.

I Booted someone recently (maybe a month or two back?) whose character was inactive for over a year and got the penalty.

No idea if the account was active or not.

[Hordo]

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.

I suppose that is possible, as we don't know about folks that may have been logging onto other servers. For all that we could tell, they left the game 6-8 months before and had not logged into any toon listed on our guild website or MyDDO.

[madmaxhunter]

I agree but I think it should be based on the character not being active rather than the account. Guilds shouldn't lose renown for booting an invactive character - how are they supposed to know the person has active characters on another server?

How are they supposed to know the person has an active character on your current server!

[Seikojin]

I agree but I think it should be based on the character not being active rather than the account. Guilds shouldn't lose renown for booting an invactive character - how are they supposed to know the person has active characters on another server?

I thought the penalty was based off the character (it should be). I mean, if it is based off the account, then you would have to boot all of their characters and know which are that persons characters in order to get them out of the guild to manage bonus for size. Which would incur such a huge potential penalty, that it would discourage guilds from booting anyone.

[Gkar]

How are they supposed to know the person has an active character on your current server!

I think its worse than that, I think its active character on ANY server, but I could be wrong...

[Zenako]

It really should be based on the character in that GUILD being booted when you are determining timing for penalties and not the account. I know I have pretty much always had characters in more than one guild (albeit some of them were family only guilds) where I parked most of my storage mules to remove them from active guild rosters (a long time ago before renown was an issue thankfully). I also know I have 20+ characters on my two main accounts, and if I had them ALL in the main guild I had been running with would have taken over the list (as it is I still have a lot there). With so many options of characters to play, some of them go a LONG time between running.

One other way to handle inactive accounts, especially when the player had multiple toons in the guild, would be to only apply any penalties to the last character still on the roster. So say someone joins up and has 5 toons in the guild and then stops playing them to run his other guys in another guild or server. The first 4 toons of that player would incur no penalty when booted, but the last toon, the 5th one could. Ultimately guilds recruit players, not pixels.

The other option would be to have a sliding maximum roster size, where inactive characters move to a secondary listing that has no maximum. Guilds are limited to 1000 active (defined as having been played in the past X months) characters. This would let guild rosters automatically semi purge and reduce the need to boot dead or inactive characters to make room for new blood. Someone comes back and they are in the adjunct listing of the guild and would take the next available slot when one opens. While an adjunct member they can keep access to the ship and buffs, but not much else. Adjunct status expires after Y months as well.

[Tshober]

I have had the same experience.

Lost two full Guild Levels.





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

When we did our most recent clean-up we lost 1.5 guild levels. If this is working, it is not helping very much. How much is the "reduced" penalty after 30 days? I had no idea this was in place.

[Chaos000]

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.

Thank you. Accepting the premise that the requirement for all members earning renown increases incrementally for each member not gaining renown in this example, a simple fix would be to add an additional +19% to the guild renown bonus (for a total of 319%) to make a 6 person guild (with only 2 members gaining renown) be afforded the same opportunities as a large 200 guild (with only 67 gaining renown) to advance.

I agree that guilds with a larger number of accounts gaining renown will have the advantage in the new system. It would be fair to first find out the average size of a small and large guild, assign a reasonable average of guild renown gain at the same ratio, and provided the large guilds still remain ahead to assign an additional bonus to allow small guilds to continue to be viable.

I disagree that including accounts not gaining renown to assess how much renown is "required per account" is warranted to gauge whether or not the system is equitable. In order to be fair in that that scenario, the theoretical maximum can not exceed a real example of the largest sized guild to hit the maximum guild level because it would then be reasonable belief that it is possible for each account to meet their per account per day burden provided the guild does not exceed a certain number of accounts.

[Eladrin]

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.

Yes, sorry for being confusing - the penalty part that I referred to was them taking a percentage of their earned renown with them. They'll still count as a recently removed member.

[Qzipoun]

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.

This is most definitely NOT the case. Removing an inactive player throws them into the 'recent departures' stack, whether they were active yesterday or 6 years ago (yes, even that far back, we lost quite a lot of guild levels because of this silly mechanic)

Edit - A little slow on my reply:

Yes, sorry for being confusing - the penalty part that I referred to was them taking a percentage of their earned renown with them. They'll still count as a recently removed member.

Hopefully you agree that this is silly though.

[madmaxhunter]

Yes, sorry for being confusing - the penalty part that I referred to was them taking a percentage of their earned renown with them. They'll still count as a recently removed member.

That should definitely be changed. 6 months inactive is plenty of time for a deployed/injured/etc. player to log-in and say hi.

[Enoach]

That should definitely be changed. 6 months inactive is plenty of time for a deployed/injured/etc. player to log-in and say hi.

Of course, but that is dependent on the type of deployment/injury/etc. Sometimes these things take more than 6 months to get back/recover from and while a game is a fun thing, many don't put that as a priority over other things, especially when they come face to face with their own mortality.

[9Crows]

Yes, sorry for being confusing - the penalty part that I referred to was them taking a percentage of their earned renown with them. They'll still count as a recently removed member.

as others have stated you take earned renown loss when you kick someone.. i have kicked toons at over a year inactivity and taken loss.. i would be happy to invite you into the guild and boot someone over 180 days so you can see for yourself

[karsion]

as others have stated you take earned renown loss when you kick someone.. i have kicked toons at over a year inactivity and taken loss.. i would be happy to invite you into the guild and boot someone over 180 days so you can see for yourself

There is no point in kicking them at that point, They do not contribute to decay.

[9Crows]

There is no point in kicking them at that point, They do not contribute to decay.

in the old system yes they did ..if they logged in for a day then they contributed decay for a month.. ..and the issue wasnt about them contributing decay the issue was about eladrins post saying that you can boot penalty free after a cetain amount of time

[Qzipoun]

There is no point in kicking them at that point, They do not contribute to decay.

No but when you have hundreds of these, someone is BOUND to login for a day and disappear again. We seriously suffered from this in my guild. Every week 2-4 people would poptart in and out. The choice was either kick everyone and suffer massive renown loss, or take your chances and not kick anyone hoping those that return stay long enough to make up for renown loss (almost never happens). It's a stupid gamble and a decision guilds shouldn't have to make.

[madmaxhunter]

Of course, but that is dependent on the type of deployment/injury/etc. Sometimes these things take more than 6 months to get back/recover from and while a game is a fun thing, many don't put that as a priority over other things, especially when they come face to face with their own mortality.

Seriously? Back to this argument? All I am saying is there should be a drop-off point for inactives. I personally have no reason to drop inactives. It just bugs me that recent departure is not considered a penalty.

And again, I am a vet and I know how the system works, and I know a soldier should tell his/her guild leader of the possibility of deployment, and if he/she is then kicked out of the guild, he/she would have been kicked out of the guild anyway because the guild leader is a jerk.

Here's an idea, when a toon goes into "archived" status, the toon is automatically dropped from the guild rolls. When the player logs back on a message will appear stating "would you like to return to your guild?" If the returning player clicks yes, then a message is sent to the guild leader. The guild leader then can accept or deny the player without penalty.