Guild Renown Changes

[smatt]

I question the renown chart in the wiki. This is not what is happening in game. The decay has increased for my guild since these changes. My guild size is low 20 members.

Hmm, you have some numbers Matt? As in what your decay was approximately, prior to the changes and what it is now? I don't see how the changes could've increased your decay rate. BUT, I have noticed a decreased renown drop rate in chests and end rewards overall. But this is just by feel after all the years playign this game i understand loot probabilites, streaks etc of course. But my gut tells me that renown is less common than it was.

[Gremmlynn]

When you talk about level 80+ small guilds you are referring to well under 1% of the small guilds out there. Small guilds also have casuals and inactives and should receive fair treatment. No it's really not ok as the system stands. I've shown many math examples to prove it. The average small guild is much lower level than the average large guild. I would like to see small guilds given fair treatment and small casual and social guilds given a chance to advance.

We shouldn't use the top 1% of the small guilds as an example for small guilds. Small guilds hit a wall just as large guilds do. When you join a high level guild it is very different than when you are working with a team to build a guild up from the start as we are. We've focused on renown and would like to see some adjustment for small guilds just like there were adjustments for large guilds. My issue isn 't as much with the level gaining aspect as it is with the decay. Decay was adjusted downward significantly for large guilds and the some fair adjustment should be made for small guilds. A 200 account guild received a 90% reduction in decay, maybe small guilds of <20 can get a 50% reduction even if it means that large guilds reduction changes to 95%. I would propose changing the decay formula from a fixed value of 20 to a fixed value of 10. That benefits everyone, but still mostly benefits large guilds the most.

I am on Sarlona and read all the Sarlona posts (as few as they are) and recall you posting within the past few weeks that you want to join a guild no lower than 70. So I assume you recognize the value of a higher guild level and why small gulids would also want an opportunity to reach higher levels.

I really don't know that these changes were made so much to make guild leveling faster for anyone as much as to remove the leveling faster by booting members mechanic go away.

If a small guild was booting less active members to reduce decay then they no longer gain advantage by that, just as large guilds don't. Frankly, I don't think the devs are as concerned as much about how well the system works for guilds as a whole as they are about how well it works for individual players. As it was, the system was set up in a way that made a large chunk of the player base detrimental to any guild they were in.

I'd be really interested in seeing a suggestion that balanced guild size without using an "hours played/member" type calculation that makes it advantages to simply only keep players that play a lot of hours. I can't think of any system that would adjust for guild size that wouldn't encourage guilds to "remove dead weight" to take advantage of it. Because, truth be told, large guilds are pretty much just small guilds that allow a lot of peripheral players join as long as the don't cost extra to have. Add a cost and for those peripheral players guilds might as well not exist at all except as reasons to tell themselves they simply don't have the time to fully play this game.

[Nilzone]

I started this game about 6 months ago and love it so far. Not being able to gain guild levels is one of the very few things i've had a major issue with, so I hope this renown change will become permanent.

I belong to a guild that recruits and permits a large number of casual players. Most of them are new to the game, like I was. I've always felt that we were being penalized for supporting new players. Supporting new players is something I believe in fundamentally, it makes the game more enjoyable both socially and mechanically.

Since i've joined we've stayed right around level 60, sometimes getting to 63 and at times dropping as low as 58. It's discouraging (as a guild with a large number of consistantly active players (even though we consider ourselves "casual")) to make a daily push to gain levels just to have it all wiped out to decay. Our guild leader spends so much time and puts so much effort into maintaining (kicking inactives, recruiting actives) our guild that i'm suprised he even has time to play.

Again I love the game. I'm glad to see that you are working on a solution. I think this change should stay and i'm hopefully that it will even be improved upon.

Thanks
Ostvel (20Monk/5BigSpinnyFlowerMaster)

[Tshober]

One thing I don't understand is how you could possibly identify social/players in a guild of 1000 characters. You get no information on renown generation and you can't possibly know every alt of every character. I heard this argument alot about booting casuals, but it woudl seem very large guilds have no way to know that someone is casual to boot them in the first place.

Are you really referring to actvity level? Booting people that hasn't been active in a long time? I would like to understand how you identify "casuals". Just curious, thanks.

Identifying them is not easy, as you point out, but if you read the many threads on this subject that were written prior to the devs change, lots of examples were given. Some smaller guildleaders had renown quota systems. Some larger guild leaders said they would monitor where their members spent their time. Any that were in the Lobster or other PvP taverns a lot got the boot. Those that only logged in occasionally could also be booted. The main method used is to put in place mandatory activity rules. And then crank those rules down to higher and higher activity levels over time. One guild leader admitted that he used this method to remove 700+ newbs that he had recruited in Korthos and the Harbor from his guild leaving just himself and half a dozen or so of his friends. And he said it worked great too. After getting rid of the "dead weight" his guild was able to level up even higher. Sure, those methods are pretty crude and would not always be fair and accurate but that was the nature of the old system we had.

[Tshober]

Hmm, you have some numbers Matt? As in what your decay was approximately, prior to the changes and what it is now? I don't see how the changes could've increased your decay rate. BUT, I have noticed a decreased renown drop rate in chests and end rewards overall. But this is just by feel after all the years playign this game i understand loot probabilites, streaks etc of course. But my gut tells me that renown is less common than it was.

Part of this is because so much new content has been introduced that gives little or no renown rewards. DDO events like Mabar and CC give virtually no renown. Challenges give almost no renown. Epic Eberron quests don't give renown end-rewards. Renown is optimal when you run +2 level quests. But they have raised the level cap to 25. How many level 25, 26, and 27 quests have been added?

If you have been taking advantage of all the newer content, then you are earning less renown per hour than you were before because the content you are playing offers less per hour of play time (on average) than it did before. Especially if you have leveled up to 25.

[Tshober]

I think the forgotten group here is the people in small guilds below level 60. While a boost was given to large guilds that are already above level 60 - there was no help for the multitude of individual players within small guilds that are below level 60.

I agree with most of what you said. But I am uncertain as to how many very small guilds are under level 60 and why. How many of them are that size because they just started up and would like to grow in membership but have not had time to yet? How many tried to expand their membership and could not find players? How many even have any active players at all? How many are pure solo players? How many are that size specifically because that is the optimal size for reaching level 100 under the old decay system? I just don't know. I just don't know how many players are in the catagory of very small guilds under level 60 because they really want to be in a very small guild. It could be a "multitude", as you say, but it could be that there really are not that many. I just don't know.

Even if it is a small number though, I do feel that they should be able to advance and level up and should not be held down in levels forever by renown decay, as larger guilds were under the old decay system.

[Tictman]

Well I like the change, our guild has had a hard time getting past lvl 46. 12 members and won't recruit more because of the decay. There are only three of us that are active all the time. Sometimes I'm the only one grinding the renown we need to not go backwards each day. At this point anything will help.

[DocBenway]

I just don't know how many players are in the catagory of very small guilds under level 60 because they really want to be in a very small guild. It could be a "multitude", as you say, but it could be that there really are not that many. I just don't know.

/raises hand
Our small guild existed before renown was imposed on us, lived through the no small bonus, and the log in all your alts or you count as more accounts and reduce the bonus times. We have 21 people, but 1-9 have been active in any month for bonus/decay in the last year. Usually 5, as low as 2 and up to 9, but not over 10, and fear that some who took a break may not wish to return casually and "hurt" our progress, even though by policy renown is to be treated as an afterthought, never obligation.

We are about 2/3 to level 51.

[Tshober]

/raises hand
Our small guild existed before renown was imposed on us, lived through the no small bonus, and the log in all your alts or you count as more accounts and reduce the bonus times. We have 21 people, but 1-9 have been active in any month for bonus/decay in the last year. Usually 5, as low as 2 and up to 9, but not over 10, and fear that some who took a break may not wish to return casually and "hurt" our progress, even though by policy renown is to be treated as an afterthought, never obligation.

We are about 2/3 to level 51.

I never said that I doubted their existence, just that I am unsure as to how many there are.

The new renown decay policy has helped your guild though. Now, even if all of your inactive accounts returned very casually to hang out with you again, they would not increase your decay at all. That was not true under the old decay system. It's not the same kind of boost that guilds with over 10 active accounts got, but it is a benefit.

[slarden]

I agree with most of what you said. But I am uncertain as to how many very small guilds are under level 60 and why. How many of them are that size because they just started up and would like to grow in membership but have not had time to yet? How many tried to expand their membership and could not find players? How many even have any active players at all? How many are pure solo players? How many are that size specifically because that is the optimal size for reaching level 100 under the old decay system? I just don't know. I just don't know how many players are in the catagory of very small guilds under level 60 because they really want to be in a very small guild. It could be a "multitude", as you say, but it could be that there really are not that many. I just don't know.

Even if it is a small number though, I do feel that they should be able to advance and level up and should not be held down in levels forever by renown decay, as larger guilds were under the old decay system.

They are under level 60 because they get more decay per account and need more renown per account to level up. The same could really be said for large guilds as to the reasons they are unable to advance. At the end of the day lack of advancement is because the renown earned by the guild doesn't cover decay. It doesn't make any sense to help out ONLY large guilds in this regard. The same reasons why these changes were made also apply to small guilds so they should also get some decay relief.

I would like to see the devs look at how many small guilds are out there and get an idea of just how many casual players in small guilds aren't getting helped at all by the new system.

Look at the example of a small guild above with 12 people stuck at level 46. This is very common with small guilds.

As for the level 100 example, I think it's far less than 1% of the small guilds which the devs should be able to confirm. It doesn't make sense to make generalizations about small guilds because less than 1% of those get to 100. the other 99%+ won't and can't get to 100 for the same reasons large guilds can't. They don't own earn enough renown to cover decay and make advancement towards the next level.

[Tshober]

Your guild of 12 was not helped at all from this change. The only change that will impact a level 46 guild of 12 is that when you gain one level, your renown drops from chests and end rewards will be worse than they were previously for 24 hours. Other than that decay and the amount of renown you must get to level up remains the same.

Your guild of 12 gets the decay for 20 people. A guild of 200 also gets the decay for 20 people.

The old decay system was 10 + max(guild size,10). His guild with 12 accounts would have decayed as 22 under the old decay system, and 20 under the new. Also, he specifically said that they would not recruit more because of decay. Under the new decay policy, recruting more people would not increase decay at all so his guild would be free to do so, whereas they were constrained from doing so under the old decay system.

[slarden]

The old decay system was 10 + max(guild size,10). His guild with 12 accounts would have decayed as 22 under the old decay system, and 20 under the new. Also, he specifically said that they would not recruit more because of decay. Under the new decay policy, recruting more people would not increase decay at all so his guild would be free to do so, whereas they were constrained from doing so under the old decay system.

Yes you are right, he did get a very minimal benefit out of it. Small guilds like his should get more benefit. They are stuck at level 46 while most of the large guilds helped by this are above that.

Helping out small guilds would not take away any incentive from recruiting as they would still benefit by adding members. Our guild is also exploring the option of merging guilds but we have one person that said he didn't want to be part of a merged guild and potential drama. The rest of us our appreshensive and don't want to merge, but we don't want to have to deal with so much decay when it would be so easy with more people. One person doesn't know about the merger because he is on at different times than us and isn't part of our face to face d-n-d group.

Ultimately merging really does nothing to add to our enjoyment of the game - in the best case scenario it's a "meh" move. But at the same time nobody wants to keep focusing on renown when only small guilds like ours have to do so under the new system. On the plus side we won't have to use VIP points for guild renown elixirs if we get a little bigger. And I assume the store will honor my refund request for the pots I haven't used since they changed the rules on me after they were purchased from the store.

Win some lose some.

[DocBenway]

I never said that I doubted their existence, just that I am unsure as to how many there are.

The new renown decay policy has helped your guild though. Now, even if all of your inactive accounts returned very casually to hang out with you again, they would not increase your decay at all. That was not true under the old decay system. It's not the same kind of boost that guilds with over 10 active accounts got, but it is a benefit.

Just providing an example of one who has been overly vocal in this thread.


It hasn't helped do to that IF in your statement. This is a test still, or did I miss a permanent implementation post? The old decay system discouraging folks from returning doesn't inform them of test changes to it, and a metric crapload of guild leaders didn't even know it was going on. I'll wager some still don't, and a surprising number who found out and came to this thread, didn't understand the system in the first place.

It has the potential to help my guild under the proper planetary alignments and whatnot, but until a revamped, clearly documented and easily accessed description of what it is and just exactly how all aspects of it work, it'll still cause undue problems.

For the last year we have had mainly a core of 4-6 and a rotation of the other 15 active and not, but never enough to have more than 9 active at a time. Of the 15, 7 have expressed to me, a dislike of causing decay and reducing the bonus as a double whammy when they return from times away. On a rare occasion when there were 4 or 5 active I'd get to tell em they helped the bonus, but the standard reply is "I'll take you over (whatevernumber) percent any day." This may or may not help any personal 'guilt' they have over it, but I try.
Of the 4-6 core(still down to 2 sometimes, but usually not more than a week), all run giant's vault on alt character to be sure they have covered the days decay, so they can start having fun without worrying about hindering the collective progress made. This, even with a stressed don't worry about renown policy.

[DocBenway]

When the server restarts, decay is immediately processed based on the amount of time that passed since the last decay happened, and from then on decay should happen every 24 hours from the restart time, unless the server restarts again.

This 'restart decay' isn't 24 hours worth, but rather an amount of decay based on how long since decay was last processed. So if decay hits at 3AM, and the servers restart at 11AM, you'll see decay at that 11AM restart that is about 1/3 of the 3AM hit (if levels didn't change, etc.), because that's 8 hours instead of 24. The next day at 11AM you'll see the normal 24 hours of decay.

This does mean guilds will see and are supposed to see decay hit multiple times in a day when the servers restart, but only for the amount they are supposed to decay by, not for two days worth in one day.

What happens when decay hits at 9:00am on the 5th, the servers go down on the 6th at 6am, before decay, then they come back up at 12pm, after usual decay. This would be 27 hours since decay hit last.

Could this be an explanation as to why you always see reports of bigger than normal decay on restart/patch days? Not so much a double-dip, but a larger scoop?

[Vargouille]

What happens when decay hits at 9:00am on the 5th, the servers go down on the 6th at 6am, before decay, then they come back up at 12pm, after usual decay. This would be 27 hours since decay hit last.

Could this be an explanation as to why you always see reports of bigger than normal decay on restart/patch days? Not so much a double-dip, but a larger scoop?

Yes, if server downtime result in more than 24 hours passed then decay will indeed be higher than it would be for a 24 hour period.

[THAC0]

There were only two changes, both mentioned in the first post.

Any other replies are clarifications to the way the system has worked for some time now.



When the server restarts, decay is immediately processed based on the amount of time that passed since the last decay happened, and from then on decay should happen every 24 hours from the restart time, unless the server restarts again.

This 'restart decay' isn't 24 hours worth, but rather an amount of decay based on how long since decay was last processed. So if decay hits at 3AM, and the servers restart at 11AM, you'll see decay at that 11AM restart that is about 1/3 of the 3AM hit (if levels didn't change, etc.), because that's 8 hours instead of 24. The next day at 11AM you'll see the normal 24 hours of decay.

This does mean guilds will see and are supposed to see decay hit multiple times in a day when the servers restart, but only for the amount they are supposed to decay by, not for two days worth in one day.

Ok. I thought so but saw all these other comments and wanted to be sure I didn't miss some other communication that went out. :-)

+1 for Devs

[Dandonk]

So, is there any time frame yet for this trial thing? Should we start mass inviting people just to kick them again in 4 weeks?

[theslimshady]

So, is there any time frame yet for this trial thing? Should we start mass inviting people just to kick them again in 4 weeks?

this is such a tired argument there is nothing outside of the guild size bonus that stops guilds from doing this under the ole system if you gain 100k for my guild i kick you i lose 25k and keep 75k and only have a plus one to modified account size for 14 days so i really dont understand why people try and use this as some fear tactic if you are going to bash the new system use something that really is new or witty thank you

[Thayion516]

this is such a tired argument there is nothing outside of the guild size bonus that stops guilds from doing this under the ole system if you gain 100k for my guild i kick you i lose 25k and keep 75k and only have a plus one to modified account size for 14 days so i really dont understand why people try and use this as some fear tactic if you are going to bash the new system use something that really is new or witty thank you

Think this was a question of Permanence, not an attack on the new system.

I know we have suggested ALOT. I have no idea how many are actually feasible with regards to Difficulty Vs Reward for the developers and programmers.

BUT i would be okay with just keeping what we have now, with the reduced decay amount. It satisfies all my problems with decay. It does not hurt casuals in guild and provides a path to higher advancement = Good Enough. Don't get me wrong, the system is still lacking.

Honestly IMO. The Large Vs Small argument is not where the problem lies. It was the problem with new players and the casual playerbase exclusion.

Formally, the Decay system required guilds to cull players/shrink size to advance. It was just the way the math was set up. That was the SYSTEMS fault.

Now, Its guilds leadership and personal decision to stay small and not gain renown at a faster pace. That is NOT the Systems fault.

[slarden]

Think this was a question of Permanence, not an attack on the new system.

I know we have suggested ALOT. I have no idea how many are actually feasible with regards to Difficulty Vs Reward for the developers and programmers.

BUT i would be okay with just keeping what we have now, with the reduced decay amount. It satisfies all my problems with decay. It does not hurt casuals in guild and provides a path to higher advancement = Good Enough. Don't get me wrong, the system is still lacking.

Honestly IMO. The Large Vs Small argument is not where the problem lies. It was the problem with new players and the casual playerbase exclusion.

Formally, the Decay system required guilds to cull players/shrink size to advance. It was just the way the math was set up. That was the SYSTEMS fault.

Now, Its guilds leadership and personal decision to stay small and not gain renown at a faster pace. That is NOT the Systems fault.

As you stated it is an issue with new and casual players which is exactly why there needs to be an adjustment for small guilds. There are numerous small guilds with new and casual players. They have been ignored with this first test change and that really needs to be addressed before a final solution is rolled out. I don't think the changes needed to help small casual guilds is really all that complicated. Cut the decay for small guilds so those of us in small guilds don't need to deal with decay. Why should small guilds have this massive decay tax each day per account when large guilds don't have to worry about it? I am not proposing putting decay on large guilds - I think they should reduce decay for small guilds.

There no reason to penalize small guilds for remaining small. The original system put some thought into making the guild system fair for small guilds and that should be present in any new system. It's a simple thing really - reduce the decay for small guilds so that all guilds can benefit from the new system. Some people including new and casual players prefer to be in a small guild. I am really discouraged that Turbine is deciding to make it easier for large guilds and not offering any help at all for small guilds after our small guild worked on building this guild up. I am happy to see large guilds helped, but I don't think it makes sense to put this massive decay burden on only small guilds.

I mean really these type of comments made by people in large guilds are the type of drama I want to avoid by being in small guilds. On this page alone we had one person asking about whether change was permanent or he should start booting people. You are basically showing no empathy towards those that want to be in small guilds by saying they should just get bigger. I had another person who was posting here against small guilds stalking me on every thread I posted and hijacking anything I posted. If I have to listen to this type of stuff in guild chat all day it is really going to kill the fun of the game. Just let those of us in small guilds get the same kind of decay relief that large guilds are getting. It's really a simple and fair thing. How does it help you to argue that small guilds shouldn't also get some benefit from a new system?