Guild Renown Changes

[MalarKan]

Dont know how you will take this, so ill just describe our current state as a guild ^^

First of all, the guild im in is level 90, we have a total of 30 account at the moment and just 8 inactive. The modified size is "Small guild". Thing is that only 4 accounts currently contribute actively to that renown gain, and the others are either casual players or former active players that just loged on to say hi and see whats going on. Before our "DOOM" downfall happened, we were just about to hit level 93, and this Renown change really saved our ship buffs :P, because i did notice the changes, and i like it, since our decay is not so huge anymore and we have been able hold the amount of renown we have practicly at same spot, being able to stay still at level 90 rocks, hitting 91 each couple days and back to 90 a couple hours after is not so bad, considering the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)

So, if you just dont feel like reading the thing above, just read this: the change is noticeable in a medium size guild thats small due inactive players, as for decay is bearable now.

Cheers!

[eris2323]

Dont know how you will take this, so ill just describe our current state as a guild ^^

First of all, the guild im in is level 90, we have a total of 30 account at the moment and just 8 inactive. The modified size is "Small guild". Thing is that only 4 accounts currently contribute actively to that renown gain, and the others are either casual players or former active players that just loged on to say hi and see whats going on. Before our "DOOM" downfall happened, we were just about to hit level 93, and this Renown change really saved our ship buffs :P, because i did notice the changes, and i like it, since our decay is not so huge anymore and we have been able hold the amount of renown we have practicly at same spot, being able to stay still at level 90 rocks, hitting 91 each couple days and back to 90 a couple hours after is not so bad, considering the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)

So, if you just dont feel like reading the thing above, just read this: the change is noticeable in a medium size guild thats small due inactive players, as for decay is bearable now.

Cheers!

Goodness - a small guild happy with the changes, at high level?

After all the fear, uncertainty and doubt that has been present in these threads, we were led to believe such a thing was impossible, and all small guilds were going to die soon.

Congrats on enjoying the new renown system AND keeping your high level!

If you guys can do it, I guess anyone can... nice to see someone honest enough to post some real, high level info!

[Dandonk]

Dont know how you will take this, so ill just describe our current state as a guild ^^

First of all, the guild im in is level 90, we have a total of 30 account at the moment and just 8 inactive. The modified size is "Small guild". Thing is that only 4 accounts currently contribute actively to that renown gain, and the others are either casual players or former active players that just loged on to say hi and see whats going on. Before our "DOOM" downfall happened, we were just about to hit level 93, and this Renown change really saved our ship buffs :P, because i did notice the changes, and i like it, since our decay is not so huge anymore and we have been able hold the amount of renown we have practicly at same spot, being able to stay still at level 90 rocks, hitting 91 each couple days and back to 90 a couple hours after is not so bad, considering the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)

So, if you just dont feel like reading the thing above, just read this: the change is noticeable in a medium size guild thats small due inactive players, as for decay is bearable now.

Cheers!

Medium guilds do indeed benefit from this. I'm happy for you.

That still doesn't change that small guilds are left behind, though.

[eris2323]

Medium guilds do indeed benefit from this. I'm happy for you.

That still doesn't change that small guilds are left behind, though.

The gentleman has only 4 active players currently, and of those, they are all 'casual' players.

Seems to me their 'small' guild is doing just spiffy.

4 people, keeping a level 91 guild afloat, all alone.

Not bad.

1 more person, and they'd probably hit 100 in no time, under the new system.

And yet, other guilds we hear about are talking about the end of their guilds, because they did not get any help, and it is the end of the world.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM averted.

[eris2323]

"the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)"

We can infer from that they play once a day, when they are not too tired from work.

We have a lot of players like this in our guild. Sometimes that describes me, even, if I've had a busy day.

Nice to know people who can just barely put any time into it, in between work and real life, can raise to such high ranks, with so few people, while still having casual players in a guild!

I think that is a pretty reasonable system - for casual players, small guilds, large guilds, and medium guilds...

[slarden]

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.

I like the idea. Or maybe set it to min (20 , max (guild size, 10)) which is effectively the same thing but putting a 50% limit on the benefit a guild of 10 or less gets.

Another option is to change it from min (20) to min (10) and be done with it if they want this type of system in place where decay is fixed regardless of guild size. This benefits all guilds and larger guilds continue to benefit the most. It's a step closer to removing decay without removing it.

Decay creates a ceiling that causes guilds to stop advancing once they hit the point there decay > avg renown earned. They move within a level range and can't make real progress unless activity level increases. Based on gulid size, here is a where a guild get stuck under the new test system based on 20 (column 2) and a system that is identical but based on 10 (column 3).

This chart shows where a guild of a specific size (column 1) that was stalled @ level 60 under the old system would stall under the new system (fixed 20) and a slightly modified version of that system (fixed 10)



As thsober said I would like to see decay removed since manipulating the formula only trades one problem for another. But if we need decay at all I think "10" makes more sense than "20". The guilds with 20 or less people are getting a benefit now, but that benefit is very short-lived and will only slightly increase the level they get stuck at.

One of the reasons I think a "test period" is very misleading for this type of change is that all guilds with 11 or more people will immediately start moving forward, but at some point that progress will stop as they simply hit a new ceiling. The smaller the guild, the faster they hit the new ceiling level where they are stuck under this new proposed system.

In addition, since adding a new player doesn't create additional decay, I think all guilds should lose 100% of the renown generated for booting a character that was active in the last 90 days. It should be based on character activity and not account activity since there is no way to know if someone just made a favor toon on another server.

I also think they should lower the level for augment slots, ships and amenities by maybe 20. That is really the only reason to care about level ... at least for me.

[smatt]

Since decay is built into the system in order to create a situation where guilds have to continue the upkeep as it were renown-wise... What if renown decay was removed completely... Instead, shorten the lifespan of the various ameneties, and increase the price VERY significantly, with modifiers in place according to guild size. Change the way those ameneties are purchased and applied, so that guilds can't "stock-up". In other words applied automatically upon purchase. Of course such a system would need some more thinking behind it.


Just a random Sunday morning thought.....

[eris2323]

I like the idea. Or maybe set it to min (20 , max (guild size, 10)) which is effectively the same thing but putting a 50% limit on the benefit a guild of 10 or less gets.

Another option is to change it from min (20) to min (10) and be done with it if they want this type of system in place where decay is fixed regardless of guild size. This benefits all guilds and larger guilds continue to benefit the most. It's a step closer to removing decay without removing it.

Decay creates a ceiling that causes guilds to stop advancing once they hit the point there decay > avg renown earned. They move within a level range and can't make real progress unless activity level increases. Based on gulid size, here is a where a guild get stuck under the new test system based on 20 (column 2) and a system that is identical but based on 10 (column 3).

This chart shows where a guild of a specific size (column 1) that was stalled @ level 60 under the old system would stall under the new system (fixed 20) and a slightly modified version of that system (fixed 10)



As thsober said I would like to see decay removed since manipulating the formula only trades one problem for another. But if we need decay at all I think "10" makes more sense than "20". The guilds with 20 or less people are getting a benefit now, but that benefit is very short-lived and will only slightly increase the level they get stuck at.

One of the reasons I think a "test period" is very misleading for this type of change is that all guilds with 11 or more people will immediately start moving forward, but at some point that progress will stop as they simply hit a new ceiling. The smaller the guild, the faster they hit the new ceiling level where they are stuck under this new proposed system.

I also think they should lower the level for augment slots, ships and amenities by maybe 20. That is really the only reason to care about level ... at least for me.

Your chart does not seem to explain how 4 players who only play after work are keeping a level 91 guild afloat

[theslimshady]

In addition, since adding a new player doesn't create additional decay, I think all guilds should lose 100% of the renown generated for booting a character that was active in the last 90 days. It should be based on character activity and not account activity since there is no way to know if someone just made a favor toon on another server..

i think we are getting some good ideas in this thread now but i dont like this no matter what there are players that need to be booted {ie acting bad} and if anything they should have to give the guild there renown for there actions

[Hordo]

Your chart does not seem to explain how 4 players who only play after work are keeping a level 91 guild afloat

How dare you bring facts into this discussion! SHAME ON YOU!

[slarden]

How dare you bring facts into this discussion! SHAME ON YOU!

It is a fact that under the old system guilds of all sizes had a chance to advance to level 100 if all the player in the guild were highly active.

The system was changed for large guilds to drop the decay significantly which means each member in the guild doesn't have as much decay and the guild will be able to advance if it was stuck. This ultimately lowers the activity requirement for each member in the guild. I concede the point that there are guilds able to advance under the old system. Far less than 1% of the small guilds were able to advance beyond 90 and only a few large guilds (not sure on the percentages). So yes advancement was defintely possible under the old and the test approach.

The issue many are raising is the current double standard. If I am a member of a small guild I must earn 10x more renown (after factoring in small guild bonus) than someone else in a larger guild to cover my decay tax. That is a fact and It's an issue that should be looked at by Turbine because players should not be penalized greater for choosing to be in a small guild.

Under the old system decay unfairly favored small gulds slightly. Under the new system decay favors large gulds greatly. Let's just lower it for everyone and make it fair. Or better yet get rid of it. 50,000,000 renown is still going to take some time even without decay.

Small guilds aren't asking for an easier time leveling, only that the decay be reduced fairly as it was for other guilds.

If we are making the arguments that we want to compare one guild's activity to another and rank based solely on player activity, that would really be a request to go back to the old system. Other than a slight glitch in their decay formula, the system was fair in the sense that all guilds with all of their members highly active would get to 100 regardless of size. As many pointed out this isn't a reality for large guilds or the vast majority of small guilds. We accept members that don't generate much renown. I've already shown how that old decay formula could be fixed easily so that it doesn't favor small guilds if we want to compare guilds based on activity.

[old-school]

The problem I have now is the same one I have always had with the guild system: the amount of renown required is so high and values that actually drop are so low that advancement for a small guild essentially stops long before reaching a worthwhile lvl, making it pointless to even try.

Case in point: my guild has 3-5 active players (all VIP and each playing 6-10 hours per week), plus 2-3 casual (VIP playing 3-5 hrs per week), along with 2-3 almost none existent members (not sure if they ever play) and 5 that stopped playing a long time ago (bugs, boredom, better things to do). We have been stuck in the limbo between lvl 36 and 38 for over six months and I have absolutely no hope of ever getting to, let alone beyond, lvl 40 in my lifetime, no matter how frequently we play.

As far as my guild is concerned we do not buy ship buffs (they are for the most part worthless at our lvl anyway) and we play as if they don't exists. If Turbine really wants us to care and participate then they will need to level the playing field by providing enough renown for us to be involved (and no - we will not spend TP on elixirs. Pay to win = fail). Until then, have fun with the system you have. We are stuck having fun without it.

[smatt]

Your chart does not seem to explain how 4 players who only play after work are keeping a level 91 guild afloat

So wait, Slarden is in a 4 man guild that is level 91 and holding?

[Thayion516]

The problem I have now is the same one I have always had with the guild system: the amount of renown required is so high and values that actually drop are so low that advancement for a small guild essentially stops long before reaching a worthwhile lvl, making it pointless to even try.

Case in point: my guild has 3-5 active players (all VIP and each playing 6-10 hours per week), plus 2-3 casual (VIP playing 3-5 hrs per week), along with 2-3 almost none existent members (not sure if they ever play) and 5 that stopped playing a long time ago (bugs, boredom, better things to do). We have been stuck in the limbo between lvl 36 and 38 for over six months and I have absolutely no hope of ever getting to, let alone beyond, lvl 40 in my lifetime, no matter how frequently we play.

As far as my guild is concerned we do not buy ship buffs (they are for the most part worthless at our lvl anyway) and we play as if they don't exists. If Turbine really wants us to care and participate then they will need to level the playing field by providing enough renown for us to be involved (and no - we will not spend TP on elixirs. Pay to win = fail). Until then, have fun with the system you have. We are stuck having fun without it.

Hmmm ..

DDOwiki says:

Present guild decay modifier for Lv 38 guild = 20.577000
Present Decay formula is Modifier*(10+10) = 20.577000*20 = 411 renown decay every 24hrs. .. 411.

8 person guild bonus is an additional 270%. X+X*2.70.

One Tales of Valor (150) calculates to 150+150*2.70 = 555 renown. Overcovers decay with one loot.

None of your players are getting 1 Tales of Valor or better a day on average? Between all your players?

1 Legendary Victory would cover your decay for more then a week.

Im sorry i have to ask: What are you members doing? Crafting all day?

[Thayion516]

yes we are a level 70 guild. We typically lose decay daily during the week and then depending on how much we play on the weekend either break even for the week or gain a bit. We sometimes make big pushs where we focus on renown.

Yes that is the same decay we had before the change. The decay tax is only a problem for small guilds with the new system.

2 are active. Renown pulls depend on what we do. If I run lords of dust chain I get very little renown. If I run the demon web chain I get quite a bit. We ran all the eveningstar quests on EE this weekend so we got good renown. What we get depends on what we do. Often time we feel obligated to run certain quests for renown to keep from dropping a level or to make a push to move up.

If our less active face to face friends are on during the weekend we usually run lower level quests at a fairly slow pace and will definitely drop back for the week.

It depends. I was quite busy with work and only played 12 days in a 6 week period during the summer although I usually logged in a bit to chat. We lost 300k or so during that time. We play most days. 1-3 hours during the weeknights and maybe 5-6 during the weekend.

The other active person spends alot of time on beta so we often lose renown when he is testing out the new content on beta. He was in the first party to complete CITW with a severely short-manned team. I think he is going to stop doing that though so we don't lose renown.

So wait, Slarden is in a 4 man guild that is level 91 and holding?

NO, Slarden is 1 of 2 people Active in his LV70+ Guild that is only one focused on gaining renown for his guild. above.

The LV90 Comment was in regards to this: 4 People in a Lv90+ guild focusing on renown. below.

Dont know how you will take this, so ill just describe our current state as a guild ^^

First of all, the guild im in is level 90, we have a total of 30 account at the moment and just 8 inactive. The modified size is "Small guild". Thing is that only 4 accounts currently contribute actively to that renown gain, and the others are either casual players or former active players that just loged on to say hi and see whats going on. Before our "DOOM" downfall happened, we were just about to hit level 93, and this Renown change really saved our ship buffs :P, because i did notice the changes, and i like it, since our decay is not so huge anymore and we have been able hold the amount of renown we have practicly at same spot, being able to stay still at level 90 rocks, hitting 91 each couple days and back to 90 a couple hours after is not so bad, considering the mad ammount of renown that just 3 players could get (that are not even heavy players, just the casual guys that after a long day of work logs on when they can and if they are not too tired)

So, if you just dont feel like reading the thing above, just read this: the change is noticeable in a medium size guild thats small due inactive players, as for decay is bearable now.

Cheers!

[old-school]

Hmmm ..

1 Legendary Victory would cover your decay for more then a week.

Im sorry i have to ask: What are you members doing? Crafting all day?

Did you not read my post? I am not commenting on decay, but the system in general and the level of renown available. I just soloed Beyond the Rift on EN and received less than 500 renown. According to the Wiki to progress from level 36 (2,332,800 ) to level 38 ( 2,743,600 ) requires 410,800 renown. At the rate we see renown – maybe 1-2 k per session that still would require 200 - 300 playing sessions. To move to level 40 will requires over 450k more – another +/- 300 playing sessions. 500 - 600 sessions total to progress 4 levels. No we are not power gaming super geniuses, just average folks with normal lives, and it has become apparent to us many aspects of this game are not geared toward that demographic.

As I said, have fun playing the game. We still try, just without guild rewards.

[Tshober]

Did you not read my post? I am not commenting on decay, but the system in general and the level of renown available. I just soloed Beyond the Rift on EN and received less than 500 renown. According to the Wiki to progress from level 36 (2,332,800 ) to level 38 ( 2,743,600 ) requires 410,800 renown. At the rate we see renown – maybe 1-2 k per session that still would require 200 - 300 playing sessions. To move to level 40 will requires over 450k more – another +/- 300 playing sessions. 500 - 600 sessions total to progress 4 levels. No we are not power gaming super geniuses, just average folks with normal lives, and it has become apparent to us many aspects of this game are not geared toward that demographic.

As I said, have fun playing the game. We still try, just without guild rewards.

I must confess, I read your initial post the same way Thayion516 did. Most of the discussion here has focussed on decay and so I just assumed so would your post. Having re-read it I see my mistake.

I am curious, how long did it take you to get to your current level? Was your guild more active and/or larger in the past?

[old-school]

I must confess, I read your initial post the same way Thayion516 did. Most of the discussion here has focussed on decay and so I just assumed so would your post. Having re-read it I see my mistake.

I am curious, how long did it take you to get to your current level? Was your guild more active and/or larger in the past?

Here is the first part of the original OP:

Greetings! We are putting forth modifications currently trying out some temporary adjustments to the Guild Renown system and monitoring the outcome and feedback this week. The intent is to address concerns from guilds and guild leaders regarding the impact of optimizing guild size in order to gain or maintain guild levels.

My comments were directed generally at the "optimizing guild size" and "gain or maintain guild levels" portion of the discussion. I know a lot has been written here (and elsewhere) about decay, but my concerns are more basic.

To your specific questions, it has taken since guild renown was first introduced to get to our current level (just shy of 38). And, yes my guild was larger at the start. We began several years ago (before scaling, before guild ships, before the DDO Store). We had ten active members and in several months of playing, usually twice a week or so for 5-6 hours we all capped several toons. When guild ships arrived some members left to join larger guilds and others drifted away to other games. About a year ago we got the old band back together and progressed a new set of mains to about 12 lvl. Then bugs, dissatisfaction with the (then) new content and general malaise lead to same result - attrition. In the mean time several others have joined but we never got back to glory of the good old days.

[Chaos000]

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.

I actually like this idea where in guilds 20 or less has their formula for decay adjusted to the number of active accounts in the guild. To prevent abuse I do propose that once the guild exceeds 20 active, the formula remains fixed therefore there is no incentive to recruit and expanding with the intent to reduce in size at a later time.

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

While initially i agreed with this position, I've since amended my feelings on this. Reduction of decay is preferable to increasing small guild bonuses. Small guild bonuses are tricky, once you create a situation where bonuses favor a small guild enough that they would benefit more than a guild two or three or four times+ their size, it becomes less desireable for existing guilds to add any new players unless the new members have a level of activity that offsets the benefits a that the guild would otherwise lose by increasing in size. As a counter point, in certain cases a guild would also find themselves with more to gain by reducing their number as opposed to adding more.

It should never be a benefit to reducing in size and always be a benefit to adding more. At the same time it should *still* be viable for a guild of ANY size to progress without having to increase in size or reduce in number.

Reduction of decay to near non-existent amounts at lower levels that progresses up and caps out at a guild size of 50 meanwhile removing the bonuses entirely may be the way to go as it does away with the "ideal" guild size and allows all guilds to continue to progress.

[Artos_Fabril]

Although it may not be a great idea to add another potentially bugged or exploitable currency system to the game, it would be a better way to deal with the renown system to eliminate size/level based decay, and instead make amenities purchased directly with renown. Then guilds only pay for the benefits that they use, and they can make more meaningful choices about using renown.