Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

I am sorry, but I just can't believe that somehow a guild of 100 players, working together and helping each other, should be treated exactly the same as some dude who wants to go it solo and make his own guild of one. I don't think he should necessarily be prohibited from doing that, nor do I think he should be unable to advance and eventually level up. But treating the two guilds equally is, IMO, ludicrous. There is literally no comparison between the two guilds. The 100 player guild brings vastly more of everything you can name to the game than the 1-man guild does. And that's the key, when you really compare guilds (and not players) there is no comparison when the sizes are so hugely different.

So I guess the bottom line for me is I very much like the new decay system. I think it is fair, in the sense that the relative contributions to the game from each guild is taken into account appropriately. I do think that tiny and small guilds should be viable and should not be prevented from leveling up by decay. But treating them exactly the same as larger guilds is simply not appropriate because they are not even close to the same in reality.


My recommendation for keeping the small and tiny guilds viable and advancing is to increase the small guild bonuses some. That is what those bonuses were meant for. The devs should have enough data to choose bonuses that will keep them from stalling out due to decay.

The issue here is not the extra the work the small guild has to do level up. I get that and accept that. It's the decay penalty they are given that is now only an issue for small guilds. As shown previosly the amount of renown earned to cover decay and level up is 10x more even with the small guild bonus. I have no problem accepting the fact that a small guild must earn more per person to level up. I can't accept they should be exclusively burdened with decay. No arguments presented here nor the red herring that there is no change for small guilds justifies this.

[Dandonk]

I am sorry, but I just can't believe that somehow a guild of 100 players, working together and helping each other, should be treated exactly the same as some dude who wants to go it solo and make his own guild of one. I don't think he should necessarily be prohibited from doing that, nor do I think he should be unable to advance and eventually level up. But treating the two guilds equally is, IMO, ludicrous. There is literally no comparison between the two guilds. The 100 player guild brings vastly more of everything you can name to the game than the 1-man guild does. And that's the key, when you really compare guilds (and not players) there is no comparison when the sizes are so hugely different.

So I guess the bottom line for me is I very much like the new decay system. I think it is fair, in the sense that the relative contributions to the game from each guild is taken into account appropriately. I do think that tiny and small guilds should be viable and should not be prevented from leveling up by decay. But treating them exactly the same as larger guilds is simply not appropriate because they are not even close to the same in reality.


My recommendation for keeping the small and tiny guilds viable and advancing is to increase the small guild bonuses some. That is what those bonuses were meant for. The devs should have enough data to choose bonuses that will keep them from stalling out due to decay.

We were not reated equally before. Levelling up took the same amount of renown for each level for any size guild, which means that having ten times as many players would mean each person had to earn a tenth of the renown of those in the smaller guild.
Now, small guild bonuses helped some here, but it was never an equal playing field.

You think quantity should be valued over quality. Fair enough. I disagree, but not to the point that I think the system should give huge dividends to those who kick casual players. So I agree that some change was warranted.

A small, focused guild who gives up loot and focuses on renown... now it doesn't matter, we'll STILL never keep up with any large guild with 90% casuals who never take renown.

I think a player-based route is best, since it gives ownership and responsibility to each player. It does not award bonuses simply due to a random definition that bigger = win. It would give bonuses on the basis of effort. That, I think, is fair.

[Thud]

Ultimately, guild renown, like any other aspect of life, will not be embraced by all. This is a game, and as such, should be played to maximize the players experience. DDO is going to make changes it believes are correct, just like the federal government, and there is no way EVERYONE is going to be happy. But, this does not mean that the players cannot find some enjoyment no matter what the changes.

In short, play, have fun, offer advice and don't expect it to be heard.

My 2 cp..

[Tshober]

You think quantity should be valued over quality.

No, you are mistaken. I think total contribution is a better measurement than average contribution.

If you choose to measure a guild by the average contibution of its players, you are ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that much larger guilds bring vastly more of everything you can possiblly name to the game than tiny guilds do. More players, more renown, more accounts, more partys, more quests, more DDO store sales, more VIP subscriptions, more everything. By dividing by number of players, you hide that obvious and very real difference between the two guilds you are comparing. You are saying that what one dude in his 1-man guild does is equal to what 100 players in another guild all do, which is just silly. Come on, are we really expected to completely ignore how totally different the contributions of 100 players are from the contribution of 1 player?

Now you might argue that 100 1-man guilds bring just as much to the game as 1 100-man guild. That is actually a realistic argument, but then you are not comparing two guilds to each other anymore, you are comparing 100 guilds to 1 guild. How does that make any sense at all for a guild leveling system? It doesn't, and frankly it never did.

[Dandonk]

Come on, are we really expected to completely ignore how totally different the contributions of 100 players are from the contribution of 1 player?

So we should all be in one single guild, because that's more better?

I think guild level should, in some way, reference the work of the players in the guild. This means that a large guild whose players do not work for their guild's renown should not, simply due to being in a large guild, have a much easier time levelling and keeping decay at bay than people in smaller guilds who try to earn renown, and work for their guild.

Guild level, to me, is a measure of accomplishment. Not the end-all-be-all, but a certain measure of accomplishment of a guild. A large guild under the new system gets higher levels with no work put into it. That, I think, is not fair.

I know you like the system, and seem to think that large guilds are somehow "owed" having an easier time levelling than smaller guilds. Why, I have no idea. Getting a higher level for less effort on the parts of their players seems counter to the idea of the system. To me, anyway.

[slarden]

Ultimately, guild renown, like any other aspect of life, will not be embraced by all. This is a game, and as such, should be played to maximize the players experience. DDO is going to make changes it believes are correct, just like the federal government, and there is no way EVERYONE is going to be happy. But, this does not mean that the players cannot find some enjoyment no matter what the changes.

In short, play, have fun, offer advice and don't expect it to be heard.

My 2 cp..

At some point if an issue is significant enough to take fun out of the game, then it most likely makes sense to find fun and enjoyment somewhere else.

Decay is not fun and I feel my guild is getting this massive decay penalty large guilds do not get and I see no reason for it. It definitely takes the fun out of the game for me and feels just like someone would feel when they don't login for a few months and then get booted from a guild. Possibly more because we worked on this guild for 2 years. It's definitely just random precision to come up with this notion that decay should be an issue for small guilds but not large guilds.

[rfachini]

Not sure if this has been mentioned--just tossing out an idea for consideration.
Maybe the guild renown system can be used to encourage specific behaviors.
For example, how about a small renown bonus in a large group. (Ex. +10% renown for a party of 5, and +15 for a party of six.)
That way people are encouraged to group, regardless of if it's a PUG or all guildies.

[Tshober]

The arguments raised about why small guilds alone should be penalized with decay is non-sensical.

I don't have a clue as to what argument of mine would have led you to think that I favored penalizing anyone with decay. I would love to see decay eliminated from DDO entirely. I have strongly advocated for exactly that for many months now.

But the devs have not offered to test that yet. What they are now testing does not eliminate decay entirely, but it greatly reduces it and solves the most harmful problems decay created for many players and many guilds. It is a huge step in the right direction. I would like to go futher in that direction and eliminate decay for everyone. Whether that can be accomplished or not remains to be seen but I will be advocating for it if there is any chance.

[Thayion516]

Just remove Renown Decay from the system and make the Ship And Amenities cost a reasonable renown purchase/upkeep. Higher the level of item = more renown cost.

That way we can CONTROL OUR OWN LEVEL OF DECAY.

I want less decay? Ill take the lv 25 Stormglory Bolt and 3 good amenities to level up.

I dont mind more decay? Ill stock the lv 55 Stormglory Tempest with all the best amenities.

That was 100% player choice.

I Don Not like ANY mathematical formula telling me how to play, or pushing to me to make a decision. Kill Formula decay and let the players make the choices.

[theslimshady]

yes renown decay should be done away with completely i mean if we was talking about xp or crafting xp or epic xp being in decay for not playing it would be a mass rage quit this system and the horse race to 100 is over and as such the guilds that reach there first should get a statue or something and the 40 million renown needed to get to 100 should be all you need to get

[slarden]

I don't have a clue as to what argument of mine would have led you to think that I favored penalizing anyone with decay. I would love to see decay eliminated from DDO entirely. I have strongly advocated for exactly that for many months now.

But the devs have not offered to test that yet. What they are now testing does not eliminate decay entirely, but it greatly reduces it and solves the most harmful problems decay created for many players and many guilds. It is a huge step in the right direction. I would like to go futher in that direction and eliminate decay for everyone. Whether that can be accomplished or not remains to be seen but I will be advocating for it if there is any chance.

Well I am sorry if I implied you were saying this. I just think when we talk about big armies, etc, we have to seperate the requirements for leveling up vs. the decay tax. I have no problem with the additional work required to level up. I just don't think that on top of that we need to only impose a significant decay tax on small guilds. Also when you make generalizations about large giulds vs. small guilds, keep in mind that there are many small guilds out there and in total they may outnumber the members of large guilds. I don't have a count but neither do you. I don't think it's fair to make generalizations about large guilds contributing more to DDO than small guilds.

I think I complimented you on another post for your continued fair and balanced way of looking at things and I apologize if I implied otherwise. I was responding merely to that specific post.

[Viisari]

You are saying that what one dude in his 1-man guild does is equal to what 100 players in another guild all do, which is just silly. Come on, are we really expected to completely ignore how totally different the contributions of 100 players are from the contribution of 1 player?

There's nothing silly about it. I could point out plenty of names who've contributed more to the game than any big guild I know of. And it hasn't happened because of their guilds for the most part.

If you choose to measure a guild by the average contibution of its players, you are ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that much larger guilds bring vastly more of everything you can possiblly name to the game than tiny guilds do. More players, more renown, more accounts, more partys, more quests, more DDO store sales, more VIP subscriptions, more everything.

This is all assumptions and you've nothing to back most of this up. For example, how many casual players in you guild have over 3 years worth of VIP subscription and over 30 000 Turbine points spent? Not many I bet.

As to more players for the game? Well that's assuming they wouldn't be playing without your guild. A rather arrogant assumption in my opinion. From what I've seen plenty of the more casual players care very little what guild they're actually in, they're just in them because they got an invite or wanted ship buffs.

Making big contributions to the game takes a lot of dedication, and that is something big guilds often lack as is obvious by their inability to reach high guild levels in the old system. Contributing to the community is way more than just having some random groups posted up in the LFM panel from time to time or having tons of people in your guild.

If these large guilds are the sole reason some are playing this game then they are contributing but that doesn't seem very likely, why wouldn't these people be just as happy with some other guild of different size? Only exceptions to this are old players who've had time to build huge social networks within the guild. Though most old timers know plenty of people even from outside the guild so it's not necessarily that specific guild that's keeping them playing but the community at large.

Even though my own guild is small/medium I've made dozens and dozens of friends in DDO over the years. Guilds are not the end-all of community building and social networking in DDO, they're just one piece in a much, much larger puzzle. And this is why the whole concept of big guilds somehow contributing more to anything at all is silly.

[Tshober]

There's nothing silly about it. I could point out plenty of names who've contributed more to the game than any big guild I know of. And it hasn't happened because of their guilds for the most part.


This is all assumptions and you've nothing to back most of this up. For example, how many casual players in you guild have over 3 years worth of VIP subscription and over 30 000 Turbine points spent? Not many I bet.
.

We are not talking about how much each guild has brought to the game since the beginning of time. Renown decay is a daily process. The question is how much does each guild bring to the game on a daily basis. There is no way you can convince me that a one-man guild of Joe Solo brings more to the game each day than a 100-man guild does each day, no matter how talented, dedicated, and hard-working Joe might be. Now if you are talking about guilds that are much closer in size, then yes, the more hard-working guild might well be able to out earn the more casual and somewhat larger one, but that will show up in the total renown each guild earns and the one that earns the most will level up faster, as it should.

No, I don't have any hard data that proves a large guild brings more to the game daily than a tiny guild does, nor do you have any that proves the opposite. But common sense tells me to bet on the large guild, very heavily.

[Samir_Bennal]

Ideas that are more likely to work out are ones that feel fair, promote playing together with people you like and have fun with, and where the system itself isn't promoting who you play with. We don't want to promote any particular guild size. And we don't want incentives for kicking players you enjoy playing with, or for players who might like to come and hang out or play occasionally to feel like they are hurting their guild or harming their friends in any way.

Simple solution, which has been stated since this whole system came out, and it fits this criteria completely. Get rid of decay. Problem solved.

[countfitz]

Ideas that are more likely to work out are ones that feel fair, promote playing together with people you like and have fun with, and where the system itself isn't promoting who you play with. We don't want to promote any particular guild size. And we don't want incentives for kicking players you enjoy playing with, or for players who might like to come and hang out or play occasionally to feel like they are hurting their guild or harming their friends in any way. If these goals seem wrong, we're willing to hear ideas on that too. This isn't an exhaustive list, but current thinking is leaning us strongly towards including these goals.

This is a great idea. Please, please do not entertain any ideas contrary to a social atmosphere. Otherwise, I feel you are all (finally) on the right track. From a small guild of mostly married adults, getting no benefit from current changes for the most part, we're all happy that the rest of DDO benefits and is a better game overall.

Small guilds have been fine for a while now, and will continue to be fine, don't worry about us. Worry about ways to make sure new players feel included, friends don't end up hating their own friends, and players don't feel guilty about their 'lack' of a contribution to their group of friends.

[Seikojin]

The big question remains - what is guild level meant to measure?

Persistance? Activity? Prestigious in-game achievements?

Answer that question and we can make suggestions as to how to get those goals met. The old system was a measure of activity per member.

^
This.

If we have a clear definition about the system, its goals and ultimate purpose, then we can spew endless ideas on achieving that goal.

[Gremmlynn]

Again, this is not nearly as much of a worry with the new system as it was with the old system. The old decay system actually rewarded guilds for doing exactly what you describe. The new system only punishes kicking and never rewards it.

There is a simple way to avoid being a victim of an abusive guild leader that would kick you after using you to level up. Don't join a start-up guild. If you are a casual player, join an established guild that has been around for a few years and has had stable leadership and has had no history of shedding members for renown reasons. Under the new decay system, many such guilds will want you to join them. Of course, not every newb in Korthos will know that but, again, the risk of abuse is lower than it was with the old decay system.

If there is great concern that the new system has not done enough by simply removing the incentives to kick players, then I would not be opposed to increasing the penalty for kicking charactes from guilds, so long as there is a reasonable time period after which the penalty no longer applies. If a character has not logged in at all for 2 or 3 months, there should be no penalty for kicking them to make room for new players. Seriously, there is no way you can say a guild that kicks characters that have not logged in at all for months is doing anything even remotely abusive. So let's go even further and increase the penalty for kicking characters from guilds, but allow guilds to kick characters that have truly stopped playing with no penalty.

The problem is that your "average" casual player isn't into the game enough to know which guilds are reliable. Heck, by your standard, there are no reliable guilds on my server as the server hasn't been around for a couple years.

A better solution would be to set the cost of removing active players from a guild at 100% renown earned and set the cost of players leaving on their own at 0% (at least for leaving on good terms). This way players can freely try out guilds and see if they are a good fit without feeling an obligation to stay, while guilds can't mass exploit players as booting them all means losing all the levels they gain you. While a guild would still lose renown from any player expelled for cause, it would be no more than what that player gained them under the current decay system, so a zero sum situation not really a cost.

As for removing inactive players. After 2-3 months not logged in it should be painless to remove players. Many of those casual players, in my experience, are new players trying the game out. Guilds should be able to clean up their roster of those that leave in order to have an incentive to invite those players and, hopefully, keep some from leaving by doing so.

[Sqrlmonger]

We're all for new ideas and brainstorming solutions (truly, really, not just tossing buzzwords). This particular idea is problematic, because it promotes kicking players from your guild to reduce decay, which is where we were before and a situation we want to avoid.

We are certainly still considering other changes and have never said that the current changes being tested were considered any kind of final solution. We'd love to have more ideas to consider.

Ideas that are more likely to work out are ones that feel fair, promote playing together with people you like and have fun with, and where the system itself isn't promoting who you play with. We don't want to promote any particular guild size. And we don't want incentives for kicking players you enjoy playing with, or for players who might like to come and hang out or play occasionally to feel like they are hurting their guild or harming their friends in any way. If these goals seem wrong, we're willing to hear ideas on that too. This isn't an exhaustive list, but current thinking is leaning us strongly towards including these goals.

Well I was going to post this a while back but I honestly didn't think you guys were interested in ideas. If you are then please consider this:


- Calculate the "Guild Renown Decay" as before and divide it amongst the *active* accounts in the guild as a "Fame Debt" instead of deducting it from the guild's renown total.
- No account can contribute to the guild's renown progress unless it has repaid all of its Fame Debt.
- Once Fame Debt is repaid, guild renown earned counts towards your "Personal Fame" as well as the guild renown total.
- Any time "Fame Debt" hits it subtracts from your Personal Fame, unless you are in debt and your debt is capped (see below).

- At certain Personal Fame levels you should gain access to a few simple benefits:
+Ship buffs last X% longer
+Access to augment slots as if your guild was X levels higher.
+Guild augments last X% longer
+ X%Renown bonus to guild members in your group (but not yourself) -- this should be a small bonus

- At certain Fame Debt levels you should lose access to a few simple benefits:
+Ship buffs duration is X% less.
+Access to augment slots as if your guild was X levels lower.
+Guild augments last X% less.
+ NO renown reduction effect, it just compounds the problem.

- Fame Debt is capped at the daily "Guild Renown Decay" amount for the entire guild. Anything extra is deducted directly from the guild renown total.
- Once an active account has been in renown debt for more than 2 weeks it becomes "Infamous"
- Any account with capped Fame Debt is "Infamous"
- Before debt is added to each account each day, if a guild has more than half of its *active* members (or 10+, whichever is LOWER) in a state of Infamy it loses a guild level (retains enough renown to be halfway between their current and previous levels) and all members lose the infamous status (but not their renown debt), with the exception of accounts with capped debt which remain infamous. The guild is then put into "Decline" status.
- A guild in decline provides no positive benefits of Personal Fame, and ship amenities cost double to purchase for all members.
- Guilds in decline status will send members into infamy if they have not repaid Fame Debt within 1 week.
- Accounts with the infamous status can be removed from a guild at the 10% renown penalty level instead of the 25% level.
- Gaining a guild level removes the "Decline" status from your guild.

o The idea here is to bring the system to a personal level for each player so they have some additional incentive to maintain certain, per member benefits, that will go away if they stop assisting the maintenance of the guild renown.
o Because of the additional buffer to guild renown decay provided by the personal fame system an additional mechanism for guilds to lose levels was required.
o While it is technically possible for a guild to have so many debt capped characters that they will lose a level each and every day, this is actually intended! This prevents guilds from just putting every person on their server in the guild. This system should allow you to have a very sizable guild without any undue penalty to your renown efforts, while also putting some pressure on leaders to not allow guild size to bloat to the point that you could lose track of your membership.

This system is NOT perfect. But I believe, with some testing/tweaking of course, it could be a vast improvement over our current system. For example, if the loss of an entire level seems too harsh it could be a certain percentage of renown from your current renown level instead, etc... My basic premise is that building a decay sink, like the personal fame system, will greatly alleviate the decay strain that many guilds face allowing their active renown producers to push them forward much more easily. In return they get some personal benefits just for them. There needs to be a downside to the guild as a whole, however, if too many people start to take advantage of the small group of people producing the renown. I believe the increased/decreased buff durations and augment durations will go a long way toward motivating people to assist in the renown efforts.

The main thing I'm not sure about with this system is how much it will increase the speed of guild leveling (because it will) and how much of a penalty being put into decline has to be on your guild to counteract this fairly.

I am open to any constructive criticism, thoughts, etc... I want to stress that I know what I have here is not perfect, and its not fully fleshed out, but I think it is a decent starting point.

[Gremmlynn]

I think it was to measure a guilded account activity and achievement.

More active the account, the more renown it generated and the more achievements it made, higher difficulty content, it accomplished.

To early and not enough coffee to try to find the original mission statement for Rise of the Guild.

I question why it has to be a measure of anything at all. Rather just something else for players to work at in-game.

Really, with no need for players to play at all, why would they want to make a system that made a few players winners and a lot of players losers. Especially a system that was based pretty much on how many hours/day one played, with the winners" playing more hours than most players would even contemplate playing. Just seems like a good way to convince most of one's customer base that they simply don't have the time to enjoy the product.

Guild size at least has the effect of causing all participating customers to feel they are contributing to the success of the team and gives guilds a reason to want as many participating as possible.

[Gremmlynn]

Decay had it's place, and that was great when "guild housing" was introduced. But it doesn't fit anymore. (And in my case, your changes almost doubled our decay)

How did setting all guilds at the absolute minimum possible decay level under the old system cause anyone's decay to go up at all, much less double?