Guild Renown Changes

[lumpilein1973]

After countless requests to change the way decay of guild renown is calculated in the game, we finally have an implementation. Many new suggestions have already been posted in this thread, in addition to previous suggestions, and in response to a temporary change that may very well be coined "The Great Equalizer". I am thrilled for our many friends in larger guilds, who now may have the opportunity to also rise to level 100 as we did in April 2012. However, as much as the "old" system was penalizing larger guilds, making it near impossible to venture beyond the point of equilibrium--on Argo we saw that point reached by CK, IA, and other large guilds, in the level 80-85 range, at which they have been hovering for what seems an eternity--the temporary change now favors larger guilds, and potential recruitment in large numbers.

Despite the rejoicing among many community members who belong to medium or large guilds, I sense that this feels like a slap in the face for small guilds, even though the renown BONUS still applies, continuing to give small guilds a benefit of sorts that larger guilds are missing out on. Yet, if the idea was to make the renown system fair, and keep it simple, the temporary change may not be the way to go.

In many discussion with friends, and other guild leaders on Argo, the main concern hasn't really been decay due to guild size, which may have been what people superficially have perceived as the main issue. The main concern is what we term REAL LIFE, and the fact that it doesn't support being in the game every day, all day, for most of us. Many players are CASUAL players, who wouldn't even WANT to log into the game every day, even if they could--DDO is a pastime for a couple of evenings a week for them. In translation, this means the issue lies with characters/accounts who do not log in for a day, or two, or five, or 30 days, because they have other things to tend to--but still factor into the decay calculations until the end of day 31 (or something similar) of inactivity.

Should this assessment be correct, one of the simplest and fairest ways I can think of to address renown decay is to make accounts go inactive (i.e. NOT contribute to decay calculations, and increase the potential small/medium guild renown bonus) much faster than they do now. Make accounts go inactive within a short period of time, a day, or two, or maybe three, for all guilds, of any size. Maintain a decay per ACTIVE account calculation (for in any guild, no one logs on EVERY DAY), and I bet you larger guilds will still see a benefit, without smaller guilds being put at a disadvantage--which seems to be the case with the temporary change currently active. The benefits of this seem immediate and apparent. This change would make DDO more casual player friendly (personal attitude problems towards casual players aside), and it would forgive the fact that people have jobs, families, get sick, go on vacation, have other hobbies. No one would feel pressured to kick people as they do not log on during a week of vacationing on the Bahamas, no one would have to grind more renown to cover decay for a guildie who had to take a second job during the week and now only plays weekends, and small guilds wouldn't see part of the rationale for maintaining small guild size disappear overnight. The list of benefits goes on......

Yummimummi
Proud Founder, Leader, and Die-A-Lot-Mascot of Single Malt Addicts

[GLand_Clickyclack]

Thank You devs for a step in the right direction. I hope there will be more quality of guild life changes in the near future.

[SirValentine]

All the devs did today was flip the inequality in guild leveling potential from large guilds to small ones.

Actually, flipped, yes, but not JUST flipped. Though there was some guild-size-inequality before, it wasn't like this.

Before, an ideally small (size 11) guild was ahead of a medium-large (size 50) by a factor of 2.04, or a factor of 1.72 ahead of a huge (size 1000) guild.

Now, the medium-large is ahead of the small by a factor of 1.4. OK, that's not bad, right?

But the huge guild is ahead of the medium large by a factor of 20, and ahead of the small by a factor of 28. That is a very big separation. The same activity level that gets the huge guild to level 100 would only get the medium-large to level 55, and the small to level 51.

[ninjadwarf_uk]

According to what has been said, and the wiki, renown decay will be ten times the guild level multiplier.
As of now, a booted player can take 25% of gained renown. Maybe up that percentage to 75%? Or something that decreases over time.

This, but make it 100% for the first two months then reduce by 10% a month down to a minimum of 20%.

That way there is no benefit to mass invite and boot after gaining level tactics, unless you keep them on gulf for a good few months, by which time they're far more likely to be a relevant part of the guild anyway

[Cyiwin]

Without knowing the goal, I'm going to assume we want the option of having a guild of any size and be able to allow others access without the concern of how often they play. This may not be Turbines goal but it sounds good to me.

Why do we need decay at all when people aren't in the game world? Since it is a game and not a career, only decay while we are logged in. Use a formula something like:

Decay = (number of guildies currently logged in)(X amount of decay) / minute

This takes guild size and time off of DDO out of the equation. And bonus! It would would make people like me think twice about going afk for an extended amount of time instead of logging off.

[Don1966]

i applaud the Devs for finally taking a look at the flawed renown decay that we have had for so long. i call it flawed in that the way it was implemented it really discouraged guilds from taking in casual players, i.e. players that do not log in every day for two or more hours of questing. making the change they did removes that flaw.
however, a better way to remove the flaw would be to come up with a new formula to calculate decay. base daily decay on the amount of renown gained the previous day and factor in the number of accounts that logged in on that day and actually earned renown. also factor in how much renown a given account earned that day, i.e. an account can not ever cost a guild more renown than it earned. this method does not discourage casual players, nor does it discourage people from logging in just to say hi. it will also smooth out any major dips from events that do not generate renown, crystal cove and mabar. this would also let smaller guilds keep part of their advantage of very little decay without overly penalizing large guilds.

under the old system an account could be created, join a guild, play for one day and gain 500 renown for the day then never logged in again. if the guild was level 70, and was holding there, that account would cost the guild 16206 renown in decay until it was considered inactive. if at a later point that account was booted from the guild, it would cost another 7563 renown plus 125 of the renown it did gain. grand total of 23894 renown taken from a guild for an account that earned just 500. please don't ever go back to that system.

[.Revenga.]

If this stays i'd like either:

- An increase in small/medium guild bonuses

- Guaranteed or much higher chances of high renown rewards in epic elite content

And this coupled with an increase in base decay.

[DocBenway]

It is good you are at least looking at it.

This change, while making me feel somewhat like Turbine no longer wants me to boot my friends who happen to have not logged on in a bit, it also makes me feel that they want me to spam invites in the harbor to everyone and their iron defender if I ever want push that digital boulder any higher up the pixelated hill.

My guild will still decay at the same artificial guild size 10 rate, while anyone I'd "get to know" before recruiting is spammed with invites from lvl100-in-two-weeks conglomerations of players with no association but a name in brackets they are tagged with and a common spot to buff.

As far as Ransack goes. Back when U5 introduced guild levels, small had no bonus so there was no way we'd level anywhere near ransack rate. Then there was that whole "log in all your alts or they'll each count as another account for bonus/decay" time. /wipesawaytear Good Times. This change doesn't help my guild.

While it is good you are looking at the system, these changes (except the no longer encouraging booting bit) seem to remove the only saving grace of the Renown system, which was deterring mass-invite guilds from being the "easiest road to 100." This change sets up neon traffic arrows directing all onto the the on ramp for the mass-invite-impersonal-feeway.

[Daemoneyes]

Excellent Changes,
all i would like to see now is some minor tweaking for the Guild Size Bonus

maybe make it a linear progression
from Guild size 12 with 300% to Guild size 75+ with -25%.

[SirValentine]

Oh, BTW Turbine...every huge guild that hits level 93+, or small guild that folds and merges into another guild, are guilds that will NOT be buying +5% XP shrines from The DDO Store.

[Levonestral]

I'm going to start off saying that I really like the recent changes you've made to the decay system and think it's certainly a step in the right direction. Thank you.

My guild has been around since almost the beginning of the game itself. We've gone from as many as 50 active accounts down to as low as 15, but usually sit around 20-25 accounts at any given time.

When the renown system was first introduced, we decided that we'd never concern ourselves with decay and just enjoy the benefits that came with what we could manage.

We have a lot of friends who from time to time drop by just to say hello and then leave again. We love to hear from them and have never been concerned about any losses from their visits. We also have a lot of long-time players who play heavy and hard for a few weeks once new content comes out, then take breaks from the game for weeks/months at a time to avoid burnout.

Despite the varying amount of activity level, to our surprise, we've been able to reach level 84 with only a few minor bumps along the way. However, we've been stuck at 84 for a while and that has been having a slight affect on morale lately by being so close to but not being able to reach 85 because of decay.

This change, though not being a huge difference for us, will give us just enough decay reduction that we'll be able to make 85 now and possibly even continue pushing on even a bit further !

As far as the 1000 player guilds reaching level 100? Who cares. Putting in the effort to get renown is a task in and of itself. The renown system is not any reflection on the internal workings of the guild itself; in-game reputation and earning the respect of peers goes a lot further than a guild level alone.

This change actually levels the playing field a bit by making it possible for any guild to now reach 100 and reducing more the improperly perceived "value" to having a high level guild number. Everyone deserves the benefits, nobody likes being "stuck".

Is the decay perfect ? No, but it's certainly better than before. Personally, I'm leaning toward the removal of decay entirely, but, if we do need to keep it, the recent changes are much better.

The original intent behind decay was to stop people from making a high level guild, then booting everyone and keeping it without any further effort needed. The plan was with good intentions, but in retrospect, what does that matter really? Why not let everyone earn it and keep it? Most people did earn it honestly, why make them pay for the actions of a few ? Grinding renown, just to keep a level, isn't much "fun" for anyone.

I think the manner in which renown is gained is just fine, the system for determining guild size bonus is just fine, but I think there should still be some effort put into reducing the exploiting of the system and players within a guild. To discourage the "Recruit, bleed and boot" actions that has been a concern, and to keep things from being overly complicated, how about this:

Setting a higher penalty for removing players from a guild early on, then have that amount reduced as time passes. For example, have the amount reduce by 10% for every 2 weeks the player is inactive:

100% loss - Active
90% loss - 2 weeks
80% - 1 month
70% - 1 month, 2 weeks
60% - 2 months
50% - 2 months, 2 weeks
40% - 3 months
30% - 3 months, 2 weeks
20% - 4 months
10% - 4 months, 2 weeks
0% - 5 months.

At this point you should be able to remove the player without any losses at all. The current losses from a player that chooses to leave should be kept as is.

With this, we could possibly remove decay entirely, as booting people early on would have a huge effect on those types of guilds.

If dropping decay entirely isn't an option, a guild member of mine suggested that you could tie decay directly to the items on your boat instead of a daily loss. This way you could actually control how much decay you have by controlling what you place on your boat.

For example (purely made up numbers!)

1%xp shrine - 100 renown loss / day
2%xp shrine - 200 renown loss / day
3%xp shrine - 400 renown loss / day
4%xp shrine - 500 renown loss / day
5%xp shrine - 1000 renown loss / day

So say you don't want the extra 1000 decay / day for the 5% shrine, you could chose to go with the slightly cheaper 4% version.

This way a guild can control their own losses.

[eris2323]

From the leader of a large guild with many casual players, I truly thank you and hope this is permanent.

Please ignore the naysayers; if they are not happy keeping up with the joneses with their 12 person powerguild, they can always recruit, too.

Thank you from those of us who have had more than 300 people in our guilds, giving homes to them all.

[DocBenway]

This change actually levels the playing field a bit by making it possible for any guild to now reach 100 and reducing more the improperly perceived "value" to having a high level guild number. Everyone deserves the benefits, nobody likes being "stuck".

The thing is that it doesn't. Any guild with 1-9 members before is still decaying at the artificial 10 member rate and still hits that "wall". No bonus whatsoever and folks who remained small due to being a group of like minded individuals with similar play styles, have less time to "get to know" a potential member since they will be inundated with invites from mass recruit to 100 guilds. They may have an infinitely better time with the people in the tight knit lvl50 guild, but don't get a chance to find out. Someone "new" is going to assume the number after guild name implies some sort of quality value, rather than a spot on an artificial treadmill, now made easier to walk when you walk it in a mass of strangers.

[Hendrik]

It is gratifying to know that the Dev's are actually listening to us. I look forward to seeing if the changes work or not.

PIF Officer

It may not be as obvious as we want, but they are always listening.

This thread is just a good example of how we can bring issues up that are important to us, deliver them in a meaningful manner, keep trolling and hate down, and get action taken.


I am just very glad that the planets aligned, proper intern sacrifices were made, and many dead kobolds later, we are on the path to a more casual friendly environment for guilds.

Thank you DEVs!

[Levonestral]

Someone "new" is going to assume the number after guild name implies some sort of quality value, rather than a spot on an artificial treadmill, now made easier to walk when you walk it in a mass of strangers.

That's my entire point. Make the guild level mean nothing. They'll see everyone being high level and then make their choices based on how much they like the people in the guild instead of just seeing the number.

Back before renown even existed, there was no way to "measure up" a guild before you joined it. You only had in-game reputation and the knowledge you gained from actually RUNNING with members of that guild. You joined a guild, got a "feel" for it and determined if it was the right fit for you personally.

It's time we headed back to that era instead of using the guild number as the sole basis of choosing one's guild. This has never been the best path to take, and something that needs to change.

Those "treadmill" guilds will continue to exist, nothing stopping them. You however, as a player, have the choice not to stay in those guilds. There will be even more options for you to choose from, all at higher levels now.

The thing is that it doesn't. Any guild with 1-9 members before is still decaying at the artificial 10 member rate and still hits that "wall".

You are right there, which is why I suggested the removal of decay entirely later on in my post. I also just added a suggestion from a guild member for allowing a guild to control their decay through their ship items instead of a blanket daily decay.

No bonus whatsoever and folks who remained small due to being a group of like minded individuals with similar play styles, have less time to "get to know" a potential member since they will be inundated with invites from mass recruit to 100 guilds

This goes exactly with what I said above also. While "pugging", you will met those people in the "treadmill" groups, and will have the opportunity to show them they have better choices. Also, most players will eventually realize they want more from the game and their guild and will seek out new one's.

[DocBenway]

Back before renown even existed, there was no way to "measure up" a guild before you joined it. You only had in-game reputation and the knowledge you gained from actually RUNNING with members of that guild. You joined a guild, got a "feel" for it and determined if it was the right fit for you personally.

It's time we headed back to that era instead of using the guild number as the sole basis of choosing one's guild. This has never been the best path to take, and something that needs to change.

My guild, that just had its 3rd anniversary, ALWAYS recruited by player personality/play style. That will not change no matter how much Turbine wants me to mass invite. But until Buff X is untied from Level Y, a new player will go where they perceive the most advantage, which is Higher level because that means more/better buffs.

Those "treadmill" guilds will continue to exist, nothing stopping them. You however, as a player, have the choice not to stay in those guilds. There will be even more options for you to choose from, all at higher levels now.

So my option is to leave the guild I've been building for 3 years and hop into a barrel unfamiliar faces because I don't like the coded bias against tight knit small family groups? That does not, to me, sound like something I want to do.

Edit since I replied while the post was being added to:

You are right there, which is why I suggested the removal of decay entirely later on in my post. I also just added a suggestion from a guild member for allowing a guild to control their decay through their ship items instead of a blanket daily decay.

I am all for the removal of decay, but as long as Renown boost exist in store, I do not see it happening. That's the horrible cynic in me again, same one that ties shadow gargoyle play dead tricks to changes in shadow creature death animation in game.

This goes exactly with what I said above also. While "pugging", you will met those people in the "treadmill" groups, and will have the opportunity to show them they have better choices. Also, most players will eventually realize they want more from the game and their guild and will seek out new one's.

Which gives me another sad since BB obsession effectively ended any enjoyment I had in pugging and run 95% guild, guild allied and friend/channel groups.

[Loromir]

Looking at post #17 on page 1... does this mean that in a 1000-account guild, each account will only have to earn 68 renown per day to maintain level 100? It will be enough to get there too, though it will obviously be much faster if they earn more.

If that's what it means, guild level will become just as much a function of size as of activity. If you want a higher guild level, just recruit someone anyone. How lame is that?

I might be misunderstanding something obvious, but making decay independent of guild size does not seem like a good change. Then I think it might be better to look at the way guild size is calculated. I don't think i have a perfect solution, but it should be possile to do in a way that does not require people who play little to earn as much favor as those playing a lot. I'm not sure 'renown per hour per account' should replace 'renown per account' but it might be possible to consider the amount of time online in a sensible way. Maybe let an account's contribution to guild size be a sum of Sqr(Hours Logged In) for a number of days, maybe with most recent days weighing more than previous days? There are lots of ways to do this.

You have to get 1,000 people who actually play. As a guild leader, my biggest challenge was not recruiting people, that is easy. My biggest challenge is recruiting people who play on a consistent basis. All too often, I have recruited people who seem all gung ho about the game only to disappear after a few weeks.

If you can find 1,000 active players to join your guild, you deserve to level up fast.

[Hendrik]

That's my entire point. Make the guild level mean nothing. They'll see everyone being high level and then make their choices based on how much they like the people in the guild instead of just seeing the number.

Back before renown even existed, there was no way to "measure up" a guild before you joined it. You only had in-game reputation and the knowledge you gained from actually RUNNING with members of that guild. You joined a guild, got a "feel" for it and determined if it was the right fit for you personally.

It's time we headed back to that era instead of using the guild number as the sole basis of choosing one's guild. This has never been the best path to take, and something that needs to change.

Those "treadmill" guilds will continue to exist, nothing stopping them. You however, as a player, have the choice not to stay in those guilds. There will be even more options for you to choose from, all at higher levels now.

That has been going on since Guildships were introduced and will not stop after this weeks renown test is finished.

If you have X Guild Level, you were asked if Y could join the Guild, based ONLY on the Guilds Level. That is not going to stop.

If you were a Korthos Army type, they were accepted. If you had more stringent membership, you tested members out - made sure they fit. None of that will change. People will still avoid the former over the latter after some PUG experience. Evolution will work itself out again.

Guilds that stagnate, of any level, with advancement in levels have a chance to move without mass kickings or invitings.

Turbine has a week of this to gather numbers and read feedback, we should give them a few days at least to do that while they tweak the system...


I look forward to next weeks DEV postings on it.

[Ivan_Milic]

Did I understand it good,you already made this change live?

[Aons]

You and nearly everyone in this thread are completely missing the point. Yes, small guilds get to keep their bonus when earning renown. HOWEVER, the mathematics of this change mean the the enormous renown earning potential of large guilds has NO offset to balance them with small guilds. As of today, small guilds are in exactly the same position large, casual guilds were in yesterday.

All the devs did today was flip the inequality in guild leveling potential from large guilds to small ones. I appreciate that the devs are trying to please a very vocal portion of the player base, but this was not the way to do it. Small guilds are being punished because it will now be laughably easy for large guilds to outlevel small ones, no matter how active the small ones are. The playing field is not even now, the inequality has just been shifted.

And to answer the question Varguille posed in his post, yes I do think that large, casual guilds rocketing to 100 in a matter of weeks/months (as they are guaranteed to do, that 3 levels/day is a joke) is a problem when small active guilds will still plod along at the same glacial pace. it devalues the achievement and does not address the base issue of inequality among various guild sizes.

Definitely this.