Guild Renown Changes

[theslimshady]

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.

so in other words if large guilds didnt exsist you would have no gripe at all and because they do it is a horrible system and you need more i understand now so basically you are piggybacking to get more for your personal guild now it all is clear to me

[slarden]

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.

And the exact same argument could have been made with regards to large guilds not advancing under the old system. Turbine made the decision not me. I pay for this game to play the game, not optimize guild size. As a player I shouldn't have to choose between getting painfully high decay or spending my limited game time building a guild that nobody in the guild wants to expand.

I understand your argument, I just completely disagree with it. Decay is a penalty inflicted on players and a player should not be punished with higher decay simply for being in a guild size that smaller than someone else's guild.

[slarden]

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.

As usual you are just making more condescending remarks, putting words into my mouth and saying things that aren't true.

I understand what you are saying (which is ridiculous) but I reject it and so do nearly 100 people from small guilds that have responded to the various decay threads. Your viewpoint has nothing to do with what is right or fair, you just want a system that highly favors large guilds such as yours. The same group of 6-7 continue to lobby to make it difficult for small guilds.

Decay is a penalty and it makes no sense to assess such a large penalty on people in small guilds. If we think a penalty is required for players, we would go back to the old system where everyone received the same penalty.

Large guilds were dumping their players to gain levels (exclusion). Many of those folks ended up in small guilds like mine and found a happy home (inclusion). Our guild was founded as a group of face-to-face friends and we expanded a bit.

I have limited play time and want to group with my friends. As it comes up naturally we invite and accept new people to the guild but we don't force it. We spend our limited game time playing the game and not trying add people when it doesn't feel natural to us. There are plenty of guilds that are growth-driven - we just want to enjoy the company of our friends and add new friends as it makes sense.

That is not anti-social, that is the way most guilds operate. There are a huge number of guilds that have 10 or less people.

You must be new to ddo because you don't appear to realize the many grouping and social mechanisms that don't invovle guild chat including channels, lfms, general chat and of course tells which I often use to communicate with my friends in other guilds. Guilds are not the main social vehicle for most players - far from it. Most of the actual social activity is done in quests and raids - not guild chat.

[McFlay]

so in other words if large guilds didnt exsist you would have no gripe at all and because they do it is a horrible system and you need more i understand now so basically you are piggybacking to get more for your personal guild now it all is clear to me

No, I'm saying under the old system 10 people with a 240% bonus to renown having to deal with the decay of 20 people, and 100 people having to deal with the decay of 110 people was a lot closer to being a fair system then the guild of 10, even with their 240% bonus accounted for, still having to deal with roughly 4x as much decay per player as a guild of 100.

And furthermore, if this system was changed to promote inclusion, it does an extremely poor job. For any guild between 6 and 49 members, it is still an overall penalty to include a super casual player who is barely going to play if it means shrinking the size of your renown bonus. Even for a 49 man guild, everyone getting an extra 1.44% renown is still more of an overall gain then someone who is going to contribute very little. If turbine wants to implemet a system designed to give people more incentive to recruit guildies, then why only give that incentive to guilds that intend to have 50 or more members, hence my dislike for the system. It does nothing but promote one size guild, and that is as big as you can possible make.

Its funny, how you accuse me of just wanting my preferred guild size to have a leg up. I don't want that. I don't want small guilds to be the dominant guild size, nor do I want large guilds to be the dominant guild size. It should be up to player preference, I'm simply saying decay should effect everyone the same, not have 20x the impact on person A, compared to person B, just because one person wants to be in a 10 man guild and the other in a 250.

[theslimshady]

And the exact same argument could have been made with regards to large guilds not advancing under the old system. Turbine made the decision not me. I pay for this game to play the game, not optimize guild size. As a player I shouldn't have to choose between getting painfully high decay or spending my limited game time building a guild that nobody in the guild wants to expand.

I understand your argument, I just completely disagree with it. Decay is a penalty inflicted on players and a player should not be punished with higher decay simply for being in a guild size that smaller than someone else's guild.

lol again misleading with the higher decay statement its the same for all guilds small to large and like the other guys post you should change your statement to if large guilds dont exsist i would have no gripes but because they do i need less decay and more bonuses or removal of large guilds for my personal gain because its unfair that my renown didnt change at all ty ddo

[McFlay]

You must be new to ddo because you don't appear to realize the many grouping and social mechanisms that don't invovle guild chat including channels, lfms, general chat and of course tells which I often use to communicate with my friends in other guilds. Guilds are not the main social vehicle for most players - far from it. Most of the actual social activity is done in quests and raids - not guild chat.

I was wondering this myself as well. Realistically, if you had a large guild, and only ever ran guild runs, isn't that actually being more exclusive then the guy who has a small guild and often runs with a guildy or two, and opens the group to pugs? If I was of a different guild, or unguilded, I know which of those players I would consider to be inclusive and which I would consider to be exclusive.

[theslimshady]

No, I'm saying under the old system 10 people with a 240% bonus to renown having to deal with the decay of 20 people, and 100 people having to deal with the decay of 110 people was a lot closer to being a fair system then the guild of 10, even with their 240% bonus accounted for, still having to deal with roughly 4x as much decay per player as a guild of 100.

again if you had a mathmatical calculation that didnt compare you to a large guild it would be more credible if large guilds didnt exsist and only 1-49 was allowed you would have no grip correct ?

And furthermore, if this system was changed to promote inclusion, it does an extremely poor job. For any guild between 6 and 49 members, it is still an overall penalty to include a super casual player who is barely going to play if it means shrinking the size of your renown bonus. Even for a 49 man guild, everyone getting an extra 1.44% renown is still more of an overall gain then someone who is going to contribute very little. If turbine wants to implemet a system designed to give people more incentive to recruit guildies, then why only give that incentive to guilds that intend to have 50 or more members, hence my dislike for the system. It does nothing but promote one size guild, and that is as big as you can possible make.

again remove large guild that you must really despise and you have nothing here either

Its funny, how you accuse me of just wanting my preferred guild size to have a leg up. I don't want that. I don't want small guilds to be the dominant guild size, nor do I want large guilds to be the dominant guild size. It should be up to player preference, I'm simply saying decay should effect everyone the same, not have 20x the impact on person A, compared to person B, just because one person wants to be in a 10 man guild and the other in a 250.

you and your math say different it says i cant stand large guilds and i want to be better then them if they did not exsist non of my maths proves the system is bad in anyway it is only bad when large guilds are added into the problem

[theslimshady]

guilds can't earn renown - only players can earn renown to cover the decay penalty.

Decay is a penalty on each player in the guild, the higher the decay penalty the more active they must be to cover that decay penalty. This is the complaint large guilds had for years - that they had too much decay and couldn't advance.

Why is it all of a sudden ok for a guild that is different than yours to have a high decay penalty for each player in the guild requiring that they play a high number of hours each day?

I see no reason why people in guilds of 10 or less should get a decay penalty 9x higher than someone in another guild (after the small guild bonus is factored in).

It's called a double standard. It's not ok for your guild to have a high decay tax per player, but it is ok for my guild to have a high decay tax per player. Notice that I have not once argued that Turbine should make it harder for large guilds. I am simply trying to get fair decay for all guilds.

and thats why i asked repeatedly to take large guilds out of you mathmatical calculations and tell me whats wrong with the system and by that same answer you are saying that a guild of 1 is equal to a guild of 49 and should have the same decay rate and the same renown intake ? or is it only guilds over 50 players

[slarden]

and thats why i asked repeatedly to take large guilds out of you mathmatical calculations and tell me whats wrong with the system and by that same answer you are saying that a guild of 1 is equal to a guild of 49 and should have the same decay rate and the same renown intake ? or is it only guilds over 50 players

We are comparing the fairness of the system. You can't ignore other guilds when you do that. I don't think players in a small guild should be punished by having a higher decay tax than players in large guilds. ultimately it's a tax on players and not guilds.

As for leveling, nobody is asking that small guilds get anything more for leveling up, we just don't think we should have to be burdened by a high decay penalty due solely to the fact that we are in a small guild.

Why was the decay penalty not ok for your guild under the old system, but you think it's perfectly fine that some guilds still have that same penalty under the new system?

[eris2323]

I said it once, I'll say it again, if guilds with two active players would stop complaining, and start playing the game and recruiting, maybe making some friends, they could be just as happy as everyone else.

If your guild is too small to advance; recruit.

Simple.

Find some friends.

[McFlay]

again if you had a mathmatical calculation that didnt compare you to a large guild it would be more credible if large guilds didnt exsist and only 1-49 was allowed you would have no grip correct ?

No actually, I'd still have a gripe, because a 10 man guild is still dealing with a lot more decay per player then a 49 man guild. Besides, this is just outright funny coming from someone with a great many posts that did nothing but compare his large guild to small guilds under the old decay system.

again remove large guild that you must really despise and you have nothing here either

So whats your point, if every guild was the same size I couldn't complain about a disparity in how decay effects guilds of different sizes, since you know, there wouldnt be any different sized guilds? Masterful argument sir, its what I'd expect from my 6 year old cousin.

you and your math say different it says i cant stand large guilds and i want to be better then them if they did not exsist non of my maths proves the system is bad in anyway it is only bad when large guilds are added into the problem

Hating a system where a member of a small guild has to compensate for 10-20x as much decay per day as a member of a large guilds means I hate large guilds?

I'd like to see a fair decay system, where each player causes the same amount of decay whether they be in a 10 man or 500 man guild. Please explain to me how such a system expresses bias towards on specific size or the other? I don't care if player x is in a 10 man guild or a 500, why should he have to pull 2 legendaries to compensate for his share of decay in a 10 man guild, while pulling less then one heroic will compensate for his decay in the much larger guild?

[theslimshady]

? Masterful argument sir, its what I'd expect from my 6 year old cousin.

logic has left the conversation now you are resulting in name calling i really hope the devs lock this post now and clean it up no matter what ideas are tossed out there i came up with the conculsion you sir will not find a happy point no matter what unless your guild gets what it wants and by any means avalible

[slarden]

I said it once, I'll say it again, if guilds with two active players would stop complaining, and start playing the game and recruiting, maybe making some friends, they could be just as happy as everyone else.

If your guild is too small to advance; recruit.

Simple.

Find some friends.

There were close to 100 people from small guilds that took the time to comment on the new system - in this thread and others. There are differing views, some like the old activity-based system and others preferrred to see decay removed completely, but almost all agree the new system is unfair. Another common theme is that people didn't want to be forced to recruit people in large numbers. Although you use untrue charcterizations such as saying we need to make friends, most of us in small guilds enjoy being in a guild with our friends and want to keep it that way. We use things like lfms, channels, tells and public chats in addition to the guild chat we have. It's very typical that small guilds have a large network of friiends from other guilds. I have friends from large guilds and small guilds. We are inclusive and not exclusive. You will never see guild only runs when we host raids. Many of the people that are not in a guild by choice would not even get a chance to run in raids if all we had was guild-only runs.

My guild is not too unlike many small gulds

1) Highly active person.
2) One person that is highly active most of the time but taking a break at the moment.
3) 6 people that play less frequently but are valued members of the guild. Their renown covers decay some days but not others. I would never boot a single person regardless unless they just stopped playing the game completely.

We have 6 people that were formerly in a large guild. 2 were booted while taking a break and I am not positive about the others - they were unguilded when I met them but seemed to like the idea of being in a small guild rather than a large guild.

You only call my guild a 2-man guild to hide the truth - that small guilds also have casual players - we just don't boot them based on their renown contribution so we failed to get any kind of benefit from the new system.

In this thread we have one group of people from large guilds arguing that people from small guilds should get no break. We also have a a few people out of the 100 or so that commented from small guilds continuing to comment that small guilds should get a break.

Just look at how cnok was treated when he posted his thoughts - he was attacked shortly after posting- as were most people that posted from small guilds.

I am really not discouraged that you make false and negative comments continually. I don't understand why moderators allow it, but it will not stop me and the others from posting.

Those of us in small guilds would like a fair system that doesn't favor one guild size over another.

We get comments like this for expressing our viewpoint that small guilds should get a chance to advance and not be held artifically at a level due to decay when large guilds are able to level without high activity levels.

Here comes my neg rep for the night.

I said it once, I'll say it again, if guilds with two active players would stop complaining, and start playing the game and recruiting, maybe making some friends, they could be just as happy as everyone else.

If your guild is too small to advance; recruit.

Simple.

Find some friends.

[theslimshady]

There were close to 100 people from small guilds that took the time to comment on the new system - in this thread and others. There are differing views, some like the old competitive system and others preferrred to see renown removed completely, but almost all agree the new system is unfair. Another common theme is that people didn't want to be forced to recruit people in large numbers. Although you use untrue charcterizations such as saying we need to make friends, most of us in small guilds enjoy being in a guild with our friends and want to keep it that way. We use things like lfms, channels, tells and public chats in addition to the guild chat we have. It's very typical that small guilds have a large network of friiends from other guilds. I have friends from large guilds and small guilds. We are inclusive and not exclusive. You will never see guild only runs when we host raids. Many of the people that are not in a guild by choice would not even get a chance to run in raids if all we had was guild-only runs.

My guild is not too unlike many small gulds

1) Highly active person.
2) One person that is highly active most of the time but taking a break at the moment.
3) 6 people that play less frequently but are valued members of the guild. Their renown covers decay some days but not others. I would never boot a single person regardless unless they just stopped playing the game completely.

We have 6 people that were formerly in a large guild. 2 were booted while taking a break and I am not positive about the others - they were unguilded when I met them but seemed to like the idea of being in a small guild rather than a large guild.

You only call my guild a 2-man guild to hide the truth - that small guilds also have casual players - we just don't boot them based on their renown contribution so we failed to get any kind of benefit from the new system.

In this thread we have one group of people from large guilds arguing that people from small guilds should get no break. We also have a a few people out of the 100 or so that commented from small guilds continuing to comment that small guilds should get a break.

Just look at how cnok was treated when he posted his thoughts - he was attacked shortly after posting- as were most people that posted from small guilds.

I am really not discouraged that you make false and negative comments continually. That you quote me and leave key portions of what I said out to make it look different than it was. I don't understand why moderators allow it, but it will not stop me and the others from posting.

Those of us in small guilds would like a fair system that doesn't favor one guild size over another.

We get comments like this for expressing our viewpoint that small guilds should get a chance to advance and not be held artifically at a level due to decay when large guilds are able to level without high activity levels.

again all this and no idea on how under this system it can be acheived like instead of 300 percent small guild bonus maybe 3000 is that fair
what is it you think would make the current system fair for your guild i think you think as large guilds we care about 100 level little guilds and the fact is we dont they have been around over a year on my server

[McFlay]

logic has left the conversation now you are resulting in name calling i really hope the devs lock this post now and clean it up no matter what ideas are tossed out there i came up with the conculsion you sir will not find a happy point no matter what unless your guild gets what it wants and by any means avalible

My apologies maam, I was unaware you would find sir offensive. But you are right, I will not be happy until decay is actually fair, and not ironically a system heavily biased towards your preferred guild.

[McFlay]

There were close to 100 people from small guilds that took the time to comment on the new system - in this thread and others. There are differing views, some like the old activity-based system and others preferrred to see decay removed completely, but almost all agree the new system is unfair. Another common theme is that people didn't want to be forced to recruit people in large numbers. Although you use untrue charcterizations such as saying we need to make friends, most of us in small guilds enjoy being in a guild with our friends and want to keep it that way. We use things like lfms, channels, tells and public chats in addition to the guild chat we have. It's very typical that small guilds have a large network of friiends from other guilds. I have friends from large guilds and small guilds. We are inclusive and not exclusive. You will never see guild only runs when we host raids. Many of the people that are not in a guild by choice would not even get a chance to run in raids if all we had was guild-only runs.

My guild is not too unlike many small gulds

1) Highly active person.
2) One person that is highly active most of the time but taking a break at the moment.
3) 6 people that play less frequently but are valued members of the guild. Their renown covers decay some days but not others. I would never boot a single person regardless unless they just stopped playing the game completely.

We have 6 people that were formerly in a large guild. 2 were booted while taking a break and I am not positive about the others - they were unguilded when I met them but seemed to like the idea of being in a small guild rather than a large guild.

You only call my guild a 2-man guild to hide the truth - that small guilds also have casual players - we just don't boot them based on their renown contribution so we failed to get any kind of benefit from the new system.

In this thread we have one group of people from large guilds arguing that people from small guilds should get no break. We also have a a few people out of the 100 or so that commented from small guilds continuing to comment that small guilds should get a break.

Just look at how cnok was treated when he posted his thoughts - he was attacked shortly after posting- as were most people that posted from small guilds.

I am really not discouraged that you make false and negative comments continually. I don't understand why moderators allow it, but it will not stop me and the others from posting.

Those of us in small guilds would like a fair system that doesn't favor one guild size over another.

We get comments like this for expressing our viewpoint that small guilds should get a chance to advance and not be held artifically at a level due to decay when large guilds are able to level without high activity levels.

If the devs take into account 1 post while deciding on the next steps that will be taken in the decay system, I hope they read this one. It pretty much sums everything up, and I'm sure the devs see how ridiculous it is that large guilds try to hide behind the false argument certain people just want a system that favors small guilds, when all we are asking for is a fair system, which the current implementation of decay is the most far thing from fair we have ever seen.

[theslimshady]

My apologies maam, I was unaware you would find sir offensive. But you are right, I will not be happy until decay is actually fair, and not ironically a system heavily biased towards your preferred guild.

great more insults and no ideas except my decay is the same and i dont like it its not fair cause 11-1000 membered guilds changed

i think under 10 should get no decay 0 and no guild bonus that would keep them from going backwards if idle or cas players are in guild and for not exploiting there should be a hardcap at 10 members that if you get past 10 members you can never go back to that under 10 small guild status again i beleave this solves the problem of decay and inactive for tiny guilds correct

[Chaos000]

i think under 10 should get no decay 0 and no guild bonus that would keep them from going backwards if idle or casual players are in guild and for not exploiting there should be a hardcap at 10 members that if you get past 10 members you can never go back to that under 10 small guild status again i believe this solves the problem of decay and inactive for tiny guilds correct

I have no issues with this. 0 bonus 0 decay for guilds upon creation and remains until such time membership exceeds 10. Reducing a current guild's membership after it has already exceeded 10 has no effect therefore removing the benefit for mass booting after reaching a certain level.

I would prefer removing all bonuses based on size and have significantly reduced decay that is equitable for guilds that currently rely on the guild size bonuses, but anything that allows for a player to make a solo guild that can "eventually" hit a guild size of lvl 100... I could go for.

[theslimshady]

I have no issues with this. 0 bonus 0 decay for guilds upon creation and remains until such time membership exceeds 10. Reducing a current guild's membership after it has already exceeded 10 has no effect therefore removing the benefit for mass booting after reaching a certain level.

I would prefer removing all bonuses based on size and have significantly reduced decay that is equitable for guilds that currently rely on the guild size bonuses, but anything that allows for a player to make a solo guild that can "eventually" hit a guild size of lvl 100... I could go for.

yes i thought this could be a potential easy fix without too much recoding i mean i dont know for sure of course

[Tshober]

I originally posted this in a thread that has since been closed. I have re-posted it here in hopes that it will provide some reasonable ideas for where we might go from here.


The problem is any decay that is applied over short periods (less than a month) is inherently discriminatory against casual players. Decay takes away progress and casual players are active so rarely that taking away progress daily or weekly essentially insures that the casual players never progress at all. What the devs have done is made it so that large and, to a lesser degree, medium sized guilds can absorb that decay and thus provide a home for casual players and still be able to advance. But, as many have pointed out, this does not help casual players who wish to remain in small and tiny guilds.

So my first recommendation is to try to convince the devs to eliminate decay entirely.

If that fails, then we could try to convince the devs to change the formula for the guild size component in the decay calculations. In the current system, the guild size component is fixed at 20. I would propose changeing that to min(20,actual guild size), where actual guild size is just the number of active accounts in the guild. This will at least get the tiny guilds some relief from decay.

If the devs cannot be convinced to reduce decay any more than they already have, then we can try to convince them to increase the small guild bonuses so that tiny guilds get some extra renown earned to make up for the extra decay they are being forced to endure.

If all of that fails, then my recommendation for casual players is to join a larger guild if you really want to level up. If you don't care about guild level, then you are free to choose a small or tiny guild but be aware that you will be hurting that guild's ability to level up.