Guild Renown Changes

[-IPJC-]

Thank u Slarden, exactly my point

[Hordo]

If people want to leave our guild for the easy level 100 button then I will not try to discourage it. However, this change was made to help casual players, not to help large guilds recruit vets from small guilds.

At least that is what we were told.

As you said, that is bound to happen in a system that greatly favors one guild size.

I keep reading your posts and just don't understand. Do you actually belong to a guild? I am the guild leader of two guilds: one large, one small. Before the changes the small one way out-paced the large one in growth and the large one was virtually stalled. After the changes, the small one still out-paces the large one in growth by a long shot and the large one is now growing again but nowhere in the realm of inequal growth/decay that you are implying over the course of your posts in this and other threads. Perhaps I'm misreading our data, however.

[theslimshady]

If people want to leave our guild for the easy level 100 button then I will not try to discourage it. However, this change was made to help casual players, not to help large guilds recruit vets from small guilds.

At least that is what we were told.

As you said, that is bound to happen in a system that greatly favors one guild size.

Nobody in my guild ever left another guild for an easy march to 100 - they knew it would never happen. I never recruit from other guilds. Nor should I be forced to as our only way to deal with this painfully high decay tax.

there is no easy button to 100 the renown still must be gained you sir are just tring to make people confused
i am sorry you feel your guild was not addressed but again i feel your statements are unproductive you refuse to stop attacking and belittling large guilds which is a shame this change affected all guilds 11-1000 members not just large and your complaint is not against large guilds but what was not done for your guild
i think it might be more productive for you to come up with a concrete idea on how to help under 10 member guilds with the current system then all the false propagandi and fear mongering tactics
my suggestion of no decay was based on i didnt see how a increase to 300 percent small guild bonus would really offset cas players in a under 10 man guild so my thought was if they couldnt play if they didnt bleed any renown it would keep them intact

[theslimshady]

There is no fear mongering. When I was on an alt I received a message from a large guild asking me if I wanted to join their guild. I declined. A guildly said he also received a tell from a large guild asking him to join. I assume he declined although he didn't specifically state that he did.

The renown must be gained sure, but there is a simple math formula to figure out what the level potential is for a guild based on where they were stalled before the change and the # of accounts in the guild. Most large guilds will not have a problem reaching 100 under the system which is fine. However, small guilds still have the same amount of decay that prevents many small guilds from advancing. This is not fear mongering it is a fact.

As for ideas, I've provided plenty. Others have provided plenty.

Can you please show me where I attacked and belittled large guilds?

again your post has no ideas in it its only a defense
what would you do under the current system to help your guilds troubles with the current system

[slarden]

I keep reading your posts and just don't understand. Do you actually belong to a guild? I am the guild leader of two guilds: one large, one small. Before the changes the small one way out-paced the large one in growth and the large one was virtually stalled. After the changes, the small one still out-paces the large one in growth by a long shot and the large one is now growing again but nowhere in the realm of inequal growth/decay that you are implying over the course of your posts in this and other threads. Perhaps I'm misreading our data, however.

Yes I am an officer/member of a guild.

It depends on the levels really. The early levels are way easier than the higher levels. It's really hard to say where a guild will stall until it actually happens. Decay doesn't start to be a serious issue until around level 60.

This only works if a guild reached a point where it was stuck in place. If a guild is still advancing it's too hard to tell where it's potential is, but it would be higher than this formula:

1) Lookup the decay multiplier for the level the guild was stalled at here:

http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown..._decay_formula

2) Use this formula to determine the lookup value:

max ((modified acct size + 10),20) / 20 * [Decay multiplier from step 1]

3) lookup this value in the multiplier column and find the corresponding level for the value closest to the # from step 2

So for a guild of 300 that was stalled at level 60 before the change, they will have no problem reaching level 100 assuming the activity level and # of people stays roughly the same. I didn't say it would be fast they still need 40MM renown, but decay will not prevent this guild from getting to 100. A small guild of 10 stalled at 60 would continue to be stalled at 60.

The reason is that the guild of 300 received a 93.5% reduction in decay while the small guild of 10 didn't receive any reduction.

I am happy for all the large guilds that got a reduction, I would just like to see every guild get the decay monkey off their back instead of just large guilds.

A guild of 10 at level 40 only has 480 decay / day. @ 50 that is 1875/day. By 71 it is 12,527 per day. At lower levels it's real easy to advance for all guilds. But eventually decay will catch up with most small guilds even if it seems like smooth sailing right now.

The 6 person guilds that advanced to 100 did so because of large amounts of play time and a flaw in the decay formula that didn't properly account for small guild bonus. It was not because it was easy.

[berlinetta84]

Right now we have a very extreme double standard. It is ok for large guilds to have low activity rates and advance, but small guilds can only advance if they are highly active. We should either reduce decay ratably for all or just get rid of it (which is also reducing ratably).

Okay, stuff like this is really starting to confuse me about this whole renown revamp. If I read the original posting correctly, the primary change is that guild-size multiplier has been removed from renown decay. Am I right in my understanding of that?

If so, I don't understand how exactly smaller guilds are being "penalized" under the new system. The small/verysmall/etc renown reward bonus is still active, and the renown decay for the smallest guilds remains the same as before.

The only penalty I can see under the new system is the one that was removed for the larger guilds, no penalty added to smaller ones, just the removal of the bias against guilds for having more members than others.

I keep seeing people saying that the system is unfair for smaller guilds, but I see it as being that a lvl X guild gets Y decay. That seems fair to me. If anything, the reward bonus for being small is technically unfair, I mean why should Bob get 150 renown for choosing the same end reward that only gives Joe 50 renown just because Bob happens to be in a small guild? They both did the same quest and chose the same reward. Is Joe being penalized for being in a large guild? No, Bob is being rewarded for being in a small one. If both their guilds are lvl 70, does Bob now get the same 50 renown from that reward as Joe? No, he still gets his 150. The only difference is that Joe has a lot more people to help stave off the daily decay cost than Bob does, by choice.

I don't see how it can get any simpler and easier to understand. If it costs 10,805 renown per day to keep a guild at level 70, then it costs 10,805 to keep a guild at level 70. If Bob chooses to do that with 5 friends, that's his choice. Why should Joe get penalized if he chooses to get 99 other people to help him?

Just because it's not fun for how some people choose to play, doesn't mean it isn't still fair.

[theslimshady]

Okay, stuff like this is really starting to confuse me about this whole renown revamp. If I read the original posting correctly, the primary change is that guild-size multiplier has been removed from renown decay. Am I right in my understanding of that?

If so, I don't understand how exactly smaller guilds are being "penalized" under the new system. The small/verysmall/etc renown reward bonus is still active, and the renown decay for the smallest guilds remains the same as before.

The only penalty I can see under the new system is the one that was removed for the larger guilds, no penalty added to smaller ones, just the removal of the bias against guilds for having more members than others.

I keep seeing people saying that the system is unfair for smaller guilds, but I see it as being that a lvl X guild gets Y decay. That seems fair to me. If anything, the reward bonus for being small is technically unfair, I mean why should Bob get 150 renown for choosing the same end reward that only gives Joe 50 renown just because Bob happens to be in a small guild? They both did the same quest and chose the same reward. Is Joe being penalized for being in a large guild? No, Bob is being rewarded for being in a small one. If both their guilds are lvl 70, does Bob now get the same 50 renown from that reward as Joe? No, he still gets his 150. The only difference is that Joe has a lot more people to help stave off the daily decay cost than Bob does, by choice.

I don't see how it can get any simpler and easier to understand. If it costs 10,805 renown per day to keep a guild at level 70, then it costs 10,805 to keep a guild at level 70. If Bob chooses to do that with 5 friends, that's his choice. Why should Joe get penalized if he chooses to get 99 other people to help him?

Just because it's not fun for how some people choose to play, doesn't mean it isn't still fair.

the whole argument is based on the 10 base accounts to decay modifier no matter if there is 2 in guild and at higher level this could be a extreme hardship for under 10 member guilds so then you campair per person with a very large guild and then it becomes my 2 player guild has to earn what 10 should have and then is not equal to what 1000 is very strange i know

[slarden]

Okay, stuff like this is really starting to confuse me about this whole renown revamp. If I read the original posting correctly, the primary change is that guild-size multiplier has been removed from renown decay. Am I right in my understanding of that?

If so, I don't understand how exactly smaller guilds are being "penalized" under the new system. The small/verysmall/etc renown reward bonus is still active, and the renown decay for the smallest guilds remains the same as before.

The only penalty I can see under the new system is the one that was removed for the larger guilds, no penalty added to smaller ones, just the removal of the bias against guilds for having more members than others.

I keep seeing people saying that the system is unfair for smaller guilds, but I see it as being that a lvl X guild gets Y decay. That seems fair to me. If anything, the reward bonus for being small is technically unfair, I mean why should Bob get 150 renown for choosing the same end reward that only gives Joe 50 renown just because Bob happens to be in a small guild? They both did the same quest and chose the same reward. Is Joe being penalized for being in a large guild? No, Bob is being rewarded for being in a small one. If both their guilds are lvl 70, does Bob now get the same 50 renown from that reward as Joe? No, he still gets his 150. The only difference is that Joe has a lot more people to help stave off the daily decay cost than Bob does, by choice.

I don't see how it can get any simpler and easier to understand. If it costs 10,805 renown per day to keep a guild at level 70, then it costs 10,805 to keep a guild at level 70. If Bob chooses to do that with 5 friends, that's his choice. Why should Joe get penalized if he chooses to get 99 other people to help him?

Just because it's not fun for how some people choose to play, doesn't mean it isn't still fair.

It's quite simple. Decay is a penalty that prevents guilds from advancing. Each person in an 8 person guild must earn 9x more renown than people in a guild of 200 just to cover the daily decay tax. This factors in the small guild bonus. All guilds struggled with decay under the old system, but only some guilds got a decay reduction. This is why it is unfair.

It effectively forces small guilds to be highly active or move backwards. Large guilds will advance with or without high activity rates. I understand that large guilds had casual players that couldn't cover their decay tax, but many small guilds also have that problem.

Wouldn't it be better to just let all guilds advance instead of only letting large guilds advance? I don't see what the problem is if small guilds also get a fair decay reduction.

[berlinetta84]

Wouldn't it be better to just let all guilds advance instead of only letting large guilds advance? I don't see what the problem is if small guilds also get a fair decay reduction.

All guilds can advance. But the 8 man guild already gets a decay reduction in the form of the bonus to renown earned. They are already getting 3 times the amount of renown per reward that the members of the large guild get. To be truly fair and equal, you'd need to remove that bonus.

Unfair would be if Turbine only allowed you to choose a guild charter based on the number of players you start the guild with. In other words, if you and 8 friends decide you want to start a guild, you only get to use the TinyGuildCharter and can never grow past 10 members. But it doesn't work that way. If you want to start a guild, you just do it, regardless of how many members you choose to invite into your guild.

It takes 1 person to start a guild, regardless of how many members you want to have - Fair.
It costs X renown to advance from one level to the next, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.
It costs X renown decay to keep your guild at level, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.

If I choose to invite 200 people into my guild or just keep it with me and 7 other people, the cost for the Guild to advance or remain at level is the same for the Guild. As long as nobody is being forced to only have 8 people in their guild, nobody is being forced to split renown cost 8 ways. They choose to.

[slarden]

All guilds can advance. But the 8 man guild already gets a decay reduction in the form of the bonus to renown earned. They are already getting 3 times the amount of renown per reward that the members of the large guild get. To be truly fair and equal, you'd need to remove that bonus.

Unfair would be if Turbine only allowed you to choose a guild charter based on the number of players you start the guild with. In other words, if you and 8 friends decide you want to start a guild, you only get to use the TinyGuildCharter and can never grow past 10 members. But it doesn't work that way. If you want to start a guild, you just do it, regardless of how many members you choose to invite into your guild.

It takes 1 person to start a guild, regardless of how many members you want to have - Fair.
It costs X renown to advance from one level to the next, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.
It costs X renown decay to keep your guild at level, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.

If I choose to invite 200 people into my guild or just keep it with me and 7 other people, the cost for the Guild to advance or remain at level is the same for the Guild. As long as nobody is being forced to only have 8 people in their guild, nobody is being forced to split renown cost 8 ways. They choose to.

A penalty should not be higher because a group of people chooses to keep a guild small. I have no problem that it takes longer to level for a small guild, but there should not be a daily penalty on top of that. Even with the small guld bonus both leveling and covering the decay is way higher - 9x or more compared to large guilds. I have no problem with the leveling aspect - that makes sense. However the penalty itself makes no sense.

What useful purpose does it serve to penalize people that choose to be in small guilds with a very high decay tax?

[Chaos000]

Large guilds will advance with or without high activity rates.

This statement is misleading. A large guild of 51 will still theoretically struggle against the daily decay tax (non-daily player activity, players with multiple characters in the same guild, players in multiple guilds)

I am all for guilds advancing instead of only letting large guilds advance. I've already suggested an equitable reduction of decay for guilds between the sizes of 1-50. 2% per player less 51. Guild of 10 = 92% reduction, guild of 20 = 82% reduction etc.

A guild of 10 (92% reduction) at level 40 only has 39 decay/day. @ 50 that is 150/day. By 71 it is 1003 per day. A guild of 2 at lvl 71 is 251 per day (98% reduction). A solo guild of 1? 100% reduction. congradulation sir 0 decay.

Now even after removing arbitrary guild size renown bonuses all guilds can now advance without being a large guild OR a highly active small guild.

Side benefits is that now large guilds that do not have a guild size renown bonus remains unaffected by this change and players that have been gaming the system with "fake dummy accounts" to maximize their guild renown bonus no longer have an incentive to continue doing so.

[theslimshady]

A penalty should not be higher because a group of people chooses to keep a guild small. I have no problem that it takes longer to level for a small guild, but there should not be a daily penalty on top of that. Even with the small guld bonus both leveling and covering the decay is way higher - 9x or more compared to large guilds. I have no problem with the leveling aspect - that makes sense. However the penalty itself makes no sense.

What useful purpose does it serve to penalize people that choose to be in small guilds with a very high decay tax?

again the decay is not higher they are all the same it maybe harder for 6 peeps then 1000 to cover it but is exsactly the same amount needed to be covered by all guilds this decay tax you keep saying is misleading and confusing

its not a tax its the same decay amount for all level guilds no matter what size the only difference is small and meduim guilds get bonuses and you direct all your math against per player tring to compare a 1000 person guild against a 6
the really confusing part of your argument is that your decay rate did not change at all 0 not 1 more renown needed from this system from the last system

[slarden]

again the decay is not higher they are all the same it maybe harder for 6 peeps then 1000 to cover it but is exsactly the same amount needed to be covered by all guilds this decay tax you keep saying is misleading and confusing

its not a tax its the same decay amount for all level guilds no matter what size the only difference is small and meduim guilds get bonuses and you direct all your math against per player tring to compare a 1000 person guild against a 6
the really confusing part of your argument is that your decay rate did not change at all 0 not 1 more renown needed from this system from the last system

A guild itself is just a chat room, ship and amenities. The guild has no ability to earn renown. People earn renow and people are what make the guild great - which is one reason people resent the fact that they must change the guild they are happy with. Decay is ultimately a tax on each person in the guild so yes there is inequity when you compare a person in a small guild to a person in a large guild. The person in a small guild is getting a massive decay tax that they would not be getting in a large guild.

The argument that "nothing changed" doesn't work. When a person in one guild got a 93.5% reduction in decay and a person in another guild got no decay reduction there was a change. If it was the other way around the large guilds would be screaming up a storm about it and we all know that.

It ultimately acts as a tax on each person in the guild. If a person earns 1000 renown and the decay is over 2000 - the person in the small guild was taxed more renown than they can earn. The old system worked like this for all guilds, but now only small guilds are stuck with thsi massive tax. If we want to change from an activity based system that is fine - but it should be the same for all guilds not just large guilds.

[theslimshady]

A guild itself is just a chat room, ship and amenities. The guild has no ability to earn renown. People earn renow and people are what make the guild great - which is one reason people resent the fact that they must change the guild they are happy with. Decay is ultimately a tax on each person in the guild so yes there is inequity when you compare a person in a small guild to a person in a large guild. The person in a small guild is getting a massive decay tax that they would not be getting in a large guild.

The argument that "nothing changed" doesn't work. When a person in one guild got a 93.5% reduction in decay and a person in another guild got no decay reduction there was a change. If it was the other way around the large guilds would be screaming up a storm about it and we all know that.

It ultimately acts as a tax on each person in the guild. If a person earns 1000 renown and the decay is over 2000 - the person in the small guild was taxed more renown than they can earn. The old system worked like this for all guilds, but now only small guilds are stuck with thsi massive tax. If we want to change from an activity based system that is fine - but it should be the same for all guilds not just large guilds.

again read between the lines you are saying it outloud your guild decay or tax as you call it has not changed at all you just dont think its fair that your guild should have a harder go at gaining renown then a large guild and you dont feel the small guild bonus goes far enough
imo the real promblem with this argument is that most small guildes that was represented in this debate said how awesome the decay system was before so being it hasnt changed at all except reworking 11-1000 member guilds i dont understand the comparison and i still after you 100 the post dont quite understand what you would like to see happen i mean a adjustment to bonus i dont really think removal or reworking the entire system is realistic and as i would like to see all happy i dont understand what you would like to see done

[slarden]

again read between the lines you are saying it outloud your guild decay or tax as you call it has not changed at all you just dont think its fair that your guild should have a harder go at gaining renown then a large guild and you dont feel the small guild bonus goes far enough
imo the real promblem with this argument is that most small guildes that was represented in this debate said how awesome the decay system was before so being it hasnt changed at all except reworking 11-1000 member guilds i dont understand the comparison and i still after you 100 the post dont quite understand what you would like to see happen i mean a adjustment to bonus i dont really think removal or reworking the entire system is realistic and as i would like to see all happy i dont understand what you would like to see done

Show me where I ever said I like the old system. It never happened .

I would like to see decay removed entirely or reduced ratably rather than only for some guilds. It may or may not happen.

I don't understand why people like yourself are fighting against giving small guilds a break like larger guilds received. It seems like your only point is that you want it to be harder for small guilds. What does that accomplish and how does that benefit the game?

[theslimshady]

Show me where I ever said I like the old system. It never happened .

I would like to see decay removed entirely or reduced ratably rather than only for some guilds. It may or may not happen.

I don't understand why people like yourself are fighting against giving small guilds a break like larger guilds received. It seems like your only point is that you want it to be harder for small guilds. What does that accomplish and how does that benefit the game?

again i am just tring to understand where you are tring to go with this i dont beleave removing the entire renown decay system is a realistic option
i dont wish anything on ya except how we can make you feel alright as a guild and after dechipering the stuff i think you are saying you want your decay removed entirely is that correct and nothing else would be viable for u and all because your decay rate when compaired to a large guild is not the same per player to gain

[berlinetta84]

A guild itself is just a chat room, ship and amenities. The guild has no ability to earn renown. People earn renow and people are what make the guild great - which is one reason people resent the fact that they must change the guild they are happy with. Decay is ultimately a tax on each person in the guild so yes there is inequity when you compare a person in a small guild to a person in a large guild. The person in a small guild is getting a massive decay tax that they would not be getting in a large guild.

The argument that "nothing changed" doesn't work. When a person in one guild got a 93.5% reduction in decay and a person in another guild got no decay reduction there was a change. If it was the other way around the large guilds would be screaming up a storm about it and we all know that.

It ultimately acts as a tax on each person in the guild. If a person earns 1000 renown and the decay is over 2000 - the person in the small guild was taxed more renown than they can earn. The old system worked like this for all guilds, but now only small guilds are stuck with thsi massive tax. If we want to change from an activity based system that is fine - but it should be the same for all guilds not just large guilds.

I really do dislike arguing semantics, but I will try one more time to explain the problem I'm seeing with your view on this.

I concede that there is in fact a disparity between how much renown a person in a small guild would need to earn to pull their share of the decay debt when compared to a member of a large guild. But that is not due to somebody deciding that people in small guilds need to be punished, it is just the result of a playstyle choice.

Let me put it to you a different way. The khopesh is widely accepted as the go-to weapon for melee. But I don't care for the way they look, just doesn't fit my char you know. So I want to use hand-axes instead. In theory I can kill anything that the khopesh user can, just not as quickly. Since it takes me longer to kill things, I'll take more damage over time and need more healing, etc. Now... should I get an automatic reduction in the hps of every npc I fight to subsidize my playstyle even though it was my choice to use the handaxes instead of khopesh?

That is what you a saying here. It costs X renown to level up or Y renown to offset decay for every guild. But since you made the choice to split X or Y with 8 people as part of your playstyle, you should get a reduction in the amount of renown needed to subsidize your playstyle even though it was your choice.

[Thayion516]

All guilds can advance. But the 8 man guild already gets a decay reduction in the form of the bonus to renown earned. They are already getting 3 times the amount of renown per reward that the members of the large guild get. To be truly fair and equal, you'd need to remove that bonus.

Unfair would be if Turbine only allowed you to choose a guild charter based on the number of players you start the guild with. In other words, if you and 8 friends decide you want to start a guild, you only get to use the TinyGuildCharter and can never grow past 10 members. But it doesn't work that way. If you want to start a guild, you just do it, regardless of how many members you choose to invite into your guild.

It takes 1 person to start a guild, regardless of how many members you want to have - Fair.
It costs X renown to advance from one level to the next, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.
It costs X renown decay to keep your guild at level, regardless of the size of your guild - Fair.

If I choose to invite 200 people into my guild or just keep it with me and 7 other people, the cost for the Guild to advance or remain at level is the same for the Guild. As long as nobody is being forced to only have 8 people in their guild, nobody is being forced to split renown cost 8 ways. They choose to.

Several others and myself have tried to explain this to Slarden. However he seems unable/willing to understand it. He just wants his 2 man casual guild that only play 3 times a month to level like a 200 man guild with continuous multiplayer input. And refuses to include other people in his guild.

Nothing against small guild sizes, but Tiny (as defined by Turbine) super casual guilds should not level any where like many player guilds.

If u want to build your levels and lighten the load Slarden, stop being antisocial in a MMO, and actually invite a few people and be social and inclusive. If inviting 2-4 good players into your guild will break your will to play. You have little will to play DDO in the first place. Buy a Xbox.

Inclusion is better then Exclusion. The Devs are absolutely right.

[McFlay]

the whole argument is based on the 10 base accounts to decay modifier no matter if there is 2 in guild and at higher level this could be a extreme hardship for under 10 member guilds so then you campair per person with a very large guild and then it becomes my 2 player guild has to earn what 10 should have and then is not equal to what 1000 is very strange i know

That's not the argument. There was always an extra +10 in the decay formula even prior to the change. The argument is about it being stupid that someone in a 10 person guild has to deal with 25x the decay per head as someone in a 250 person guild, and that if turbine is going to have guild decay it shouldn't only be significant if you happen to prefer being smallish guild.

[McFlay]

Several others and myself have tried to explain this to Slarden. However he seems unable/willing to understand it. He just wants his 2 man casual guild that only play 3 times a month to level like a 200 man guild with continuous multiplayer input. And refuses to include other people in his guild.

I don't think thats the issue. The issue is pre change a group of 5 casuals and 5 active players were in roughly the same position as a group of 50 casuals and 50 active players. Now the guild of 10 is dealing with 10x the decay per person as the guild of 100. We go from a system that at least had relatively the same impact on every player, to one that group A sees no change, and group B gets a massive reduction, and some it becomes an issue of inclusion/exclusion?

Is it really encouraging inclusion if I guild a bunch of people and never talk to them or do anything with them, but the system encourages me to spam invite if I want an easier time leveling? If turbine wanted to encourage inclusion there are a lot better ways to doing it then telling everyone who enjoys a guild on the smaller end of the spectrum to join/become a large guild, because if you aren't a large guild your exclusive, otherwise just eat the turd sandwich and be happy.

I'm also trying to understand how ridiculous the whole concept is that turbine actually did this to encourage inclusion, when it wasn't all that long ago they implemented dungeon scaling, that is the single biggest reason in ddo to not group and not play with other people through most content.