Guild Renown Changes

[Missing_Minds]

Those, like myself, who answer with a resounding "NO!" to your question that I bolded in the quote, that are not willing to cause hurt and make divisions, are prevented from getting those inherently tied to renown buffs, doo entirely to the mechanics of decay that penalize them harder than anyone else.

And as yet, there are guilds, such as Cyr's, that answered "yes, they are" because that is what they chose to do. The choice is the player's, and that is what I stated.

[DocBenway]

And as yet, there are guilds, such as Cyr's, that answered "yes, they are" because that is what they chose to do. The choice is the player's, and that is what I stated.

And that statement proves the harm the mechanic causes. Without decay as implemented, there would never have been a choice.

[Thayion516]

When 2 parts of a question cannot exist without each other, they cannot have disparate answers. My guild doesn't even know what the Jones's look like, or what "side of the tracks" they live on. Guild buffs exist and are tied to renown. What buffs the Jones's have, doesn't matter to me, except if they are useful in an upcoming quest and the local Jones in the group has invited me to his ship. I don't want to miss the specific to upcoming quest useful one. I don't begrudge Jonsey having it when I'm with him nor when he's in Amrath and I'm in Korthos. I just want to know that someday, maybe before draconic prophecy is fulfilled, we can get them too. Decay still causes artificial roadblocks for anyone 1-9. Meaning a playstyle change is needed to overcome how much you are fined for not playing.

Those, like myself, who answer with a resounding "NO!" to your question that I bolded in the quote, that are not willing to cause hurt and make divisions, are prevented from getting those inherently tied to renown buffs, doo entirely to the mechanics of decay that penalize them harder than anyone else.

You see what the issue is? The people that behaved in the antisocial manner you described benefited under the old system. They no longer do under the test changes. Those that said "Never, No, never!" all along, were penalized for it under the old system and that remains unchanged in the new with the exception that they don't have to behave antisocially to gain artificially. That, I've repeatedly said is Good. Changes to remove the artificial roadblock for sizes above 10 Good.

Minor tweaking to address the existing artificial roadblock for 1-9, would also be Good.

U know after reading this i take back what i said about Bonuses. if Slarden and his 5 buddies want to play DDO and get a guild to lv 100. Go for it. Because your game play has zero impact on my game play.

Same goes for Bob that wants 200 people in his community guild. Let them Advance and enjoy the game.

As long as ALL are able to advance, it really dont matter the means. And any energy trying to make it perfectly "Balanced" is wasted energy, because again, your guild levels do not effect my guild levels. As long as we BOTH can get them without dramatic differences in effort.

Also changing the bell curve and widening it also makes alot of sense instead of a sharp peak at 6 people.

So that's my final stance I believe. Just make it DOABLE Turbine. I want Inclusivity, a sense of reward for leveling my guild, and a non-detrimental path to Advancement.

[Tshober]

What I have stated is that you have the choice of causing hurt to expand your own power fast or working together grow as a group.

Grow as a group? Under the old decay system, guilds that did not rid themselves of casual/social players did no growing at all. For them there was no growing, there was only endless decay. When my guild made the choice you advocate (not kicking out any casual/social players), we did not grow. We shrank. Some of our more active players saw that we would never level up anymore and left us for guilds that had decided to kick out their casual/social players. So we started losing levels. And so some more of the active players then left. And we lost more levels. Evenutally we stagnated again at a lower level and were a much more casual guild than we were before and more casual than I wanted us to be. The players who left would tell me "I love the guild and everyone is really fun and friendly, but I just can't stand the decay." Some of them had been with the guild for years. Some of those who left eventually came back to us after finding that the higher level guilds were not as fun as they had imagined, but the damage had already been done.

You paint it like it is a really simple choice for a guild leader and the reality of it is it is not a simple decision. Either way is harmful. One way harms the casual/social players and the other way harms the people who have been working hard to level the guild up. That is why the old decay policy was so awful, because no matter which choice you made, people were harmed. Thank goodness the devs have finally come to realize that.

[Missing_Minds]

Grow as a group? Under the old decay system, guilds that did not rid themselves of casual/social players did no growing at all.

If there was no growth, you would have only ever been level one. Were you only level 1?

No, what you had was growth till the guild would hit a plateau. That was how the system was designed and still (on live) functions.

If the guild found the rewards worth the effort, then they would have to put effort in, and at a certain point things were going to reach a static peak and choices would be made. Power or Fellowship.

Frankly, it is that simple. To continue to throw out "but" in relation to growth just means you are wanting more power.
To re itterate, I never have once stated the system was a good one. Like others, I look forward to seeing change. However, the guild strife is player caused ultimately. You can let the carrot on the stick divide you or not.

[Tshober]

Frankly, it is that simple. To continue to throw out "but" in relation to growth just means you are wanting more power.

Frankly, you sound like someone who has never been in that situation and had to make such a decision and deal with the consequences. Are you a guild leader? What level is your guild and how many members does it have? Has your guild stopped leveing yet?

I am the leader of a quite large guild and we have been though the stagnation and I had to make the decision we are discussing here. We stopped leveling at 63 and, when I decided to not kick out any casual/social players, we dropped to level 60 and stagnated again. We were still stuck between 60 & 61 when the devs made the change to renown decay. Since the change we have managed to get back to up 62.

[jhadden30]

Does anybody on here remember when Dungeons and Dragons was played on a table with real dice and real friends/family and it was really fun? If so, how often did you get together? Once, twice a week? Did you ever "boot"
somebody from your table because they couldn't make it on a Tuesday night? My point is, the original game, that this game is derived from was and is about getting together with a group, finding an adventure and having fun. Nothing more, nothing less. So why can't we just follow those same ideas here?

[slarden]

Frankly, you sound like someone who has never been in that situation and had to make such a decision and deal with the consequences. Are you a guild leader? What level is your guild and how many members does it have? Has your guild stopped leveing yet?

I am the leader of a quite large guild and we have been though the stagnation and I had to make the decision we are discussing here. We stopped leveling at 63 and, when I decided to not kick out any casual/social players, we dropped to level 60 and stagnated again. We were still stuck between 60 & 61 when the devs made the change to renown decay. Since the change we have managed to get back to up 62.

All I can say is that I admire that choice and am glad your guild is able to move forward now. For the most part almost every mechanic in ths game is about achievement - past lives, gear, favor, etc. I don't see a need for the guild system to have a chess-like rating system where guilds will hit a wall they can't climb past. That would be more appropriate for a PVP system if they ever developed it.

[Missing_Minds]

Frankly, you sound like someone who has never been in that situation and had to make such a decision and deal with the consequences. Are you a guild leader? What level is your guild and how many members does it have? Has your guild stopped leveing yet?

I am the leader of a quite large guild and we have been though the stagnation and I had to make the decision we are discussing here. We stopped leveling at 63 and, when I decided to not kick out any casual/social players, we dropped to level 60 and stagnated again. We were still stuck between 60 & 61 when the devs made the change to renown decay. Since the change we have managed to get back to up 62.

Sounds like the guild I'm in, and you know what? It doesn't bother us because we perfer the company of our friends to that of such carrots. We are stagnet about lvl 63 last I looked. I'm not the leader but I was an officer at the time when such policies were being made.

Sure, we look at that number and go "Golly gee... wouldn't it be nice to have a higher level?" Pretty much as all gamers do when looking at stuff that can be advanced. But we are not about to kick people over it.

To have to retort to such a "frankly" question, over a GAME... that is really sad. Will you let a game dictate your moral compass when dealing with other individuals in this situation? I won't.

[mikarddo]

So the tested system means that
a) Larger guilds level up far easier because they have more people to earn the renown
b) Larger guilds suffer far less from decay as they are more people to share it
c) Larger guilds buy ships and what to put there much easier because they have more people to share the cost.
Whoever figured that was fair clearly needs to rethink the whole system.

[Gremmlynn]

The argument doesn't really hold water. The reason small guilds get to high levels is by ensuring that all members have high play time and meet certain standards. They are essentially all hardcore players. There aren't enough hardcore players in the game to form a hardcore large guild. If there were enough people you would see large hardcore gulids that reached 100. The other 99%+ of small guilds also never have a chance to make level 90.

Oh, there are plenty enough to do it. It's just human nature that they rarely do and it generally doesn't last long on those occasions that it does happen. This is the case in pretty much any human endeavor.

[Gremmlynn]

You ask a two part question and expect a singular answer. However, my answer remains the same.
With no mechanic, obviously, what "is not" will not factor into guild decisions.
The mechanic does indeed force guilds to make decisions because it is applied to all guilds. Is it harmful? In my opinion it is only harmful if you choose "keeping up with the Jones's", choosing greed and power over friend and fellowship.

I ask you in turn, are these hour long buffs and such worth that much, that you are willing cause hurt and make divisions?

This only applies if all guildies are considered equal. Some take the game seriously enough to see keeping up with the Jones's as important. They tend to play a lot and thus make for a good core for guilds. Others don't take it so seriously and thus lack a lot of reason to play a lot, at least after the new wears off, and thus really don't bring a lot to a guild, though are likely to get the most benefit from it as a ready source of people to play with.

The divisions were always there. Turbine just make a system that drove a wedge between them, rather than create the symbiosis this test system does.

[THAC0]

With no guild decay every player in the game has level 100 guild ships with one member or invite the whole server because there is no consequence.

Either way is Death to this game.

The current status quo before this thread, made sense and STOP MAKING THREADS AND CRYING ABOUT DECAY WHEN IT IS THE GUILD LEADER WHO IS TO BLAME!
It is up to the Guild leaders to manage their guilds for f sake!

I don't understand this logic. I am a Guild Leader and I manage my guild pretty well if you ask me (or ask the 35 actively playing members in game or on our guild forums right now...and try to ask the 35 not actively playing...).

How does my Guild Level affect your Guild Level? Do my ship items interfere with your ship items? Or perhaps, I should turn this around into something people would understand better.

I'm guessing you have more than 1 character you play. (assumption... I know...) When you level to 20, do you concern yourself with playing him/her on a rotation to keep him active at level 20? No. You upgrade his gear (or choose not to), yet he remains at 20...play him every day or once a month...he is at 20. No backwards leveling. How would you feel if after not playing your character for a week (out of game or playing other characters) you logged in your character to see he has dropped to level 19. I bet that would not sit to well with you.

On our boat, we upgrade and refresh shrines (which I understand the premise, Turbine needs us to spend Turbine Points and/or Plat). Or, perhaps we could choose not to put one thing on the hook points on our boat...does that impact others? We actually end up inviting people on the boat to use Alters or get buffs before quests...is that a negative impact? Come to think of it, I remember when there were no Ship Buffs available and everyone did Favor runs to get House J and P favor up to get their buffs... hmm... sound familiar? Who here still does that?

As the Devs rolled out Guild Ships and the Renown Decay, I was opposed to it then. In principle, I am still opposed to it. If my guild reaches level 10 or 50 or 100... that is a level of effort me and my guildies did...not *anyone else*. If it takes us a week or month or year to reach level 100, why does that matter to *anyone else*? How does that negatively impact your play style? In all honesty, I don't see the relevance.

This is the Titanic that the Devs put us all on (sorry Tolero/Cordovan), and as they devise a plan to keep us all alive... we as Guild Leaders have to decide who to toss over board to keep the lifeboats all Guilds of various levels got put on floating, while wait for the next wave of changes.

So I say again, set Guild Decay to 0 (I'd leave the code first and test, then comment out the code and test...)...put that out on Lama to see what breaks (again, sorry Tolero/Cordovan) and get some input from the players here.

This is the most obvious answer to this problem since it is one created by them trying to provide benefits to having a Guild in the first place instead of a glorified chat channel. We would have been better off with Guild Houses in the various Houses in Ebberon (I would have loved to have a Guild House in House Kundark...it would have promoted more in House player activity. Instead, people run to the Ship Towers and that is where most of the Player Traffic is.)

My 2 cents and my opinion again.

[JasonJi72]

I have a small guild. Kender on Thelanis.

Leveling to 80 is NOT easy for a small guild btw. We always have 4-6 active players. Some become inactive due to RL issues, but we always manage to maintain a small guild bonus with roughly 6 active accounts at any one time, even though we have more that 6 accounts in the guild. We have good players who are active, and we play together a lot. Currently, we are at level 68, and it has taken quite some time to get there. We are very picky about who we accept. This is partly due to guild reknown, and partly due to the fact that we just prefer 'cool' people.

While I have no intention of 'opening the gates' to the KSS Topknot, I will consider accepting more members once this whole guild reknown/decay mess gets sorted out.

Suggestions:

If we must have decay, then please consider having it based upon a percentage of what the guild earns. Say if the guild 'Smellyorcs' earns X amount of reknown in a week, then the Smellyorcs guild will lose Y/X reknown for the next week spread over time. This way the 'Underpants' guild can be on a similar leveling curve as the Smellyorcs guild based on how much effort they put in. Large guilds will still level faster, but smaller guilds with more dedicated players will not be left in the dust either. There are advantages to being in a large guild, and there are several disadvantages to running a large guild.

Once a 'benchmark' is reached, reknown decay cannot cause the guild to go below that level. For guilds that have 'capped', reknown should no longer be an issue. The exception to the rule would be for kicking people to prevent someone from making a large guild, quickly getting to 100, and booting everyone but his/her close friends.

Writing that last statement made me realize why we have decay in the first place. It is a complex issue that needs to be handled carefully to prevent abuse.

Good job guys. I just wish it didn't take over a month for an active guild to get one level. Sometimes it is more like 3 months, or seems like it. I remember being stuck in the mid-30's for 6 months or more.

Every time I see lfm's by people looking to join a 70 something guild or higher, I send them a tell, saying "join a level 20-40 guild and help them get there. You will have more fun, and it will feel like a real guild once you level up." They never listen, and eventually end up joining some large guild. I guess, since I never follow up on it.

Currently, we are on our third ship, and I will always have a fondness for the original KSS Topknot. Getting that first ship at guild level 20 was one of the best feelings I had in this game.

Disclaimer:

I chose Smellyorcs and Underpants for guild names for an example, and did not intend to refer to any guild. I appologize if one of those names is in use.

KSS Topknot stands for Kender Sky Ship Topknot. Originally, I intended to start a halfling only guild, but had to open it up when all my other characters got booted from the guild I was in 3 years ago when I pulled a halfling out of there to put into Kender. Yes, it has taken me 3 years to get the guild to level 68. There were times when I was the only acitve member.

Jyn.

[THAC0]

U know after reading this i take back what i said about Bonuses. if Slarden and his 5 buddies want to play DDO and get a guild to lv 100. Go for it. Because your game play has zero impact on my game play.

Same goes for Bob that wants 200 people in his community guild. Let them Advance and enjoy the game.

As long as ALL are able to advance, it really dont matter the means. And any energy trying to make it perfectly "Balanced" is wasted energy, because again, your guild levels do not effect my guild levels. As long as we BOTH can get them without dramatic differences in effort.

Also changing the bell curve and widening it also makes alot of sense instead of a sharp peak at 6 people.

So that's my final stance I believe. Just make it DOABLE Turbine. I want Inclusivity, a sense of reward for leveling my guild, and a non-detrimental path to Advancement.

Wow... somebody else finally gets it. The way I (and my guildies play and achieve) have zero impact on how you and your guildies play or achieve.

[JasonJi72]

Wow... somebody else finally gets it. The way I (and my guildies play and achieve) have zero impact on how you and your guildies play or achieve.

Agreed.

The only thing that needs to be considered is how to prevent abuse and griefing. I remember there was a concern about permitting people from expelling en masse the players who helped them reach a certain benchmark when guild levels were first introduced.

I am glad that they are finally addressing this issue. There are some really good and active large guilds out there that have been perpetually stuck in the 80's due to the reknown decay system.

[Gremmlynn]

So the tested system means that
a) Larger guilds level up far easier because they have more people to earn the renown
b) Larger guilds suffer far less from decay as they are more people to share it
c) Larger guilds buy ships and what to put there much easier because they have more people to share the cost.
Whoever figured that was fair clearly needs to rethink the whole system.

Why?

It gives the tight knit, serious players that make up the all important core of a guild a reason to allow a mass of less frequent, less serious players to use their framework to find others to play with in an environment with more accountability than the games general population. So, the tight knit group gets to level faster, while the mass get's better access to better behaved groups in exchange for behaving in a civil manner themselves. Seems like a win, win, win situation to me, with Turbine being the third winner as people with better access to better behaved groups tend to be more likely to keep playing.

[THAC0]

Agreed.

The only thing that needs to be considered is how to prevent abuse and griefing. I remember there was a concern about permitting people from expelling en masse the players who helped them reach a certain benchmark when guild levels were first introduced.

I am glad that they are finally addressing this issue. There are some really good and active large guilds out there that have been perpetually stuck in the 80's due to the reknown decay system.

Scenario 1:
If a player choose to leave a Guild (rage quit or changed mind in being in said Guild), no impact to Guild Renown earned at former Guild (as opposed to now with a % hit to Guild Renown.)

Scenario 2:
If a Guild Leader decides to boot 'Bob' the casual player (or hard core player). Said Guild Leader sees the total Guild Renown 'Bob' has given to the Guild... and would agree to loose a large % (I'd say 50%) that amount from Guild Renown. Call it a Loss or Penalty, but it is the cost of having to make the decision to boot somebody... for whatever reason. To reduce griefing, only the Guild Leader or Successor could actually boot 'Bob'....not Officers or other Members. This clearly puts the responsibility in 2 peoples's hands and also forces the Guild Leader to choose/set a Successor (which is a notorious problem some Guilds have as they lack this!)

Scenario 3:
If 'Bob' has not logged in (the character, not the account for 'Bob') for over 180 days (as that is a number already being used)... no affect on Guild Renown to boot 'Bob'.

Scenario 4:
If the account that owns character 'Bob' chooses to Delete 'Bob' not having removed him from the Guild, no impact to Guild Renown of said former Guild. Speaking of which, Devs... could you please group characters by account or have some sort of character relationship mechanism instead of just listing them. The UI sucks for figuring out who is who when 1 player has multiple characters in a Guild. Future consideration ... not a Guild Renown issue... just say'n.

Did I miss anything? I think that covers most of the options of what 'could' happen.

Again, my opinion. I really don't envy the Devs on this topic. But, they (IMO) have an easy solution they are just avoiding. Square peg, round hole...

T.

[SlowDM]

It's awful watching guild level go down. It's much much worse knowing it's entirely possible for it to fall to level 25. On the other hand its great fun watching guild level go up, may even actually make you play and group more.
Renown decay. How is that fair? How does that encourage people to play?
A question here. I play a lot mostly for fun. Should i as a player seriously have to make sure i earn renown. Really should anyone have to resort to, for example running irestone inlet 2 hrs a day. Am i reading this right that i could cost a guild 1,000's of renown per day. So if i choose to play my 20th level character in some lev 8 quests simply because i want/enjoy them i penalise a guild.
Why penalise people, we get enough of that in real life.

[Gremmlynn]

Scenario 1:
If a player choose to leave a Guild (rage quit or changed mind in being in said Guild), no impact to Guild Renown earned at former Guild (as opposed to now with a % hit to Guild Renown.)

Scenario 2:
If a Guild Leader decides to boot 'Bob' the casual player (or hard core player). Said Guild Leader sees the total Guild Renown 'Bob' has given to the Guild... and would agree to loose a large % (I'd say 50%) that amount from Guild Renown. Call it a Loss or Penalty, but it is the cost of having to make the decision to boot somebody... for whatever reason. To reduce griefing, only the Guild Leader or Successor could actually boot 'Bob'....not Officers or other Members. This clearly puts the responsibility in 2 peoples's hands and also forces the Guild Leader to choose/set a Successor (which is a notorious problem some Guilds have as they lack this!)

Scenario 3:
If a 'Bob' has not logged in (the character, not the account for 'Bob') for over 180 days (as that is a number already being used)... no affect on Guild Renown to boot 'Bob'.

Scenario 4:
If the account that owns character 'Bob' chooses to Delete 'Bob' not having removed him from the Guild, no impact to Guild Renown of said former Guild. Speaking of which, Devs... could you please group characters by account instead of just listing them. The UI sucks for figuring out who is who when 1 player has multiple characters in a Guild. Future consideration ... no a Guild Renown issue... just say'n.

Did I miss anything? I think that covers most of the options of what 'could' happen.

Again, my opinion. I really don't envy the Devs on this topic. But, they (IMO) have an easy solution they are just avoiding.

T.

Seems pretty common sense to me.

Though I would keep some sort of "leave under bad terms" penalty in scenario 1 to prevent trying to avoid the boot penalty by being a big enough jerk to get members to quit. Under the current decay system, anything under 100% would be a gain for the guild in the case of simple bad matches, but would deter any sort of institutional mass invite and get them all to quit schemes.