Guild Renown Changes

[Hendrik]

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

Yes


"Flipped the switch" meaning there was not any need for downtime.

This is a week long test of the change. I'm sure they will be monitoring data while in effect and our feedback as week progresses.

[Levonestral]

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.


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:


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.

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.

Let's be clear first, never did I suggest you drop your guild and join a "Treadmill" guild, or suggest that you become one yourself.

My guild is a very small tight-knit guild, just like yours. It takes us months to get around to recruiting new players, we take our time. We recruit carefully, just like you. Over a long period of time (since the renown was first introduced) we've been able to get to a decent high level and we've enjoyed the entire trip.

Based on your comment about not pugging, that's fine, it's also what we do; but you can't say that, then complain about the "treadmill" guilds getting all the "new" players.

[Ivan_Milic]

So you have a problem with 1000 acc guild getting to 100 faster than 30 acc guild?
For me it makes sense that guild with more people will gain lvls faster than smaller guild,but here you want them to gain lvls at the same rate?

[Ivan_Milic]

Yes


"Flipped the switch" meaning there was not any need for downtime.

This is a week long test of the change. I'm sure they will be monitoring data while in effect and our feedback as week progresses.

Something that caused problems for years was solved just like that.

[Levonestral]

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.

Fully agreed here. It's the "perception" of a high level guild being "better" I'm hoping these changes will help reduce. Not likely, but hopeful.

My recruitment plans never changed, and never will. Most "good" guilds out there didn't change their plans either.

It's the perception of that silly guild number that keeps throwing people off and heading the wrong direction. Remove that perception and things might balance for the better for everyone.

[Hendrik]

Definitely this.

And in the 'old' system it is the large guilds that were 'harmed'. They would plateau and stop, never to advance again. Funny how the tables have turned and all the nerdrage now...


Hence all the threads about renown and decay culminating in a very productive thread last week.

This weeks TEST is a step to address a system that harms ALL Guilded players, of all sizes and levels.

[Chai]

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 entire point of the discussion is to make the guild system more like a sidewalk and less like a treadmill. People dont seem to care that it takes longer for them to level, what they care about is they get to keep their progress, however large or small that may be, similar to the XP system.

[DocBenway]

The entire point of the discussion is to make the guild system more like a sidewalk and less like a treadmill. People dont seem to care that it takes longer for them to level, what they care about is they get to keep their progress, however large or small that may be, similar to the XP system.

Yeah. I meant treadmill is where I am when I'd rather be walking, even up a steep hill.

[Levonestral]

Yeah. I meant treadmill is where I am when I'd rather be walking, even up a steep hill.

The entire point of the discussion is to make the guild system more like a sidewalk and less like a treadmill. People dont seem to care that it takes longer for them to level, what they care about is they get to keep their progress, however large or small that may be, similar to the XP system.

Sorry everyone, my perception of "Treadmill" was one of "slaves doing work for our gain regardless of who they are" (Korthos Army style). I think we're actually all on the same page, I just misunderstood the phrase.

I fully agree with you. Everyone would be far happier seeing a gain constantly, regardless of how slow or fast. Which is why I liked this change (we've been stuck at 84 for 4 weeks now with little gains).

Personally I'd like to see decay removed entirely and let everyone just gain and enjoy what they get without the backlash and worries of decay.

[theslimshady]

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.

right thats realistic a large army will get things done far faster then tiny extra renown boosted tiny unit seems logical in ever way to me

meaning that the best guild would be the best large built guilds instead of small tightly nit units of elitist because the social factor becomes what it should be not that of a videogame but that of a ddo king or queen that someone who controls 100s should be more reveared then someone who controls 12 because the job of getting lots of peeps to play together in peace is harder then getting 12 to play nice together

[Aons]

And in the 'old' system it is the large guilds that were 'harmed'. They would plateau and stop, never to advance again. Funny how the tables have turned and all the nerdrage now...


Hence all the threads about renown and decay culminating in a very productive thread last week.

This weeks TEST is a step to address a system that harms ALL Guilded players, of all sizes and levels.

I fully understand what you say, but removing 100% of the penalty from the number of guilded is just going from a side to the other side. I will never call it a solution and maintain that the large guilds will pop to 100 very fast. That will be funny to see how many level 90-100 guilds will take place in a year, not helped by the fact that the guilded played better but because the officers have recruited more To my point of view, thats the point to consider.

Btw, i know most of those threads, the problem is real. But again, not the right move. If it's a single TEST, let's see what it brings.

Cheers

[Tshober]

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.

Your guild is still leveling just as fast or faster than it was before this change. You will eventually be able to reach level 100 and you will get there at least as fast as you would have before the change. If you really prefer a small guild and so do your other members, then how has anything changed for you? What is different for your guild now? Why does how fast someone else's guild might level up make any difference to you or to your guild?

The only way small guilds can possibly be affected by this change is if their members jump to higher level guilds. And if that is the case, then those members really did not prefer smaller guilds to leveling up fast after all. All of this talk about "like-minded people" and close knit "family" guilds is just a lot of baloney, if people are willing to jump ship to a faster leveling guild. But if they really do prefer a smaller guild and they don't jump to another guild, then nothing has changed for your guild and you can keep working toward level 100 like you were before and you will get there a little bit faster now.

[RangerOps]

We needed this change and I thank you for the lowering of stress on guild members and leaders by acting upon this request from larger guilds. I hope this does enough to sustain the larger guilds thru events like Mabar and Cove. These are the things that paying for VIP is all about. Keep up the good work in this direction!! It is greatly appreciated to be heard and worked with.

[DocBenway]

right thats realistic a large army will get things done far faster then tiny extra renown boosted tiny unit seems logical in ever way to me

Just playing devils advocate to lighten the mood, but what would scare you more coming after you, 30 Private First Class infantry, or 3 Special Ops Green Berrets

[Levonestral]

I fully understand what you say, but removing 100% of the penalty from the number of guilded is just going from a side to the other side. I will never call it a solution and maintain that the large guilds will pop to 100 very fast. That will be funny to see how many level 90-100 guilds will take place in a year, not helped by the fact that the guilded played better but because the officers have recruited more To my point of view, thats the point to consider.

What does it matter how many level 100 guilds are out there? It doesn't actually mean anything.

Allowing anyone to reach a high level, easily, will help that. As Hendrik and I both said earlier, a guilds reputation, recruiting methods etc all play a much bigger factor in a guilds "status" rather than just some fabricated number.

Let everyone gain levels, without decay, enjoy their guild, enjoy their gains, enjoy their game.

The perception that a high-level guild number actually means something needs to die and be buried forever.

[Thayion516]

First off, THANK YOU!!!! for looking into updateing the guild renown system! Its MUCH needed.

Im not a GL but my friend is, he dont post on forums much but over lunch we heavily discussed this yesterday.

Static Accord, G-Land, 6 accounts/18 toons. 3 active accounts, Lv 34.

Also a member character in Knights of the Old School, G-land, 300ish accounts, 180 Active (but many casual), 120 Departed. that GL just kicked many dead accounts, 3 months + = Dead. SO we have been loosing levels over the last month or so as he is kicking peeps .. think we have lost 3 levels so far trying to manage the roster. We were stuck at 66 for more then a year. He got tired of Fearing the Decay.

To us 3 things need to happen to the Guild System in DDO for it to be effective.

1. Membership Formula Decay must be done away with in its Size/Level/departed/active/inactive/bonus/no bonus pile of mess it previously was. We Like the Guild Amenities costing renown up-keeps for a natural controllable source of decay. It places Control into the GL Hands instead of being prisoner of the system.

Players have a sense of ownership .. "I helped buy that 5% XP shrine"
Guilds can control "Decay/Costs" by making choices on amenities. .. " Lets Level faster this month. I will just buy the +1 shrines this month."

2. There must be a cut off point for dead accounts counting against the guild total renown. I like 60 days logged off is flat 10% penalty of that toons contribution at kick. If they have not graced my guild in 2 months.. i dont care to play with them. Before 60 days is a flat 75% penalty of contribution. The Kick penalty must be Steep to defend against mass kicks.

3. The Guild Size bonuses need to be widened based on accounts. 1-29 small @300% bonus, 30-79 med @ 150% bonus, 80-139+ large @80% bonus, 140+ huge 0%.

Those 3 things would vastly improve the DDO Guild system.

PS.. oh ya .. finish the guild upper tiers aminities OR redistribute them better.

PPS .. and 1 more thing .. Add a instanced Apartment on the top end ship for me to have additional storage! Hell, I'll buy a Weapons Rack from the DDO store for 995 TP to go in it!

[DocBenway]

Your guild is still leveling just as fast or faster than it was before this change. You will eventually be able to reach level 100 and you will get there at least as fast as you would have before the change. If you really prefer a small guild and so do your other members, then how has anything changed for you? What is different for your guild now? Why does how fast someone else's guild might level up make any difference to you or to your guild?

As I have posted before, no, it won't get to 100. The same artificial roadblock level plateau still exists for any guild with 1-9 members. Decay, as implemented by the switch flip, is based on the same hard coded 10 account minimum decay math. The quote is a reply to my perception of a statement that Levonestral had made.

What has changed for me? Nothing decay wise, same rate and same wall blocking 100.

What is different now? I don't feel pressure from a system to do what I never would and boot friends for math. This is good There is less deterrent to recruit. This is good. Mass inviting will have a near 30fold advantage in renown gain causing shipbuff co-ops to become the sole perceived purpose of guilds. This is bad as my guild recruits by player and not number and any potential will have gottten 600 invites by the time we know they might fit in with us.

How fast anyone else levels doesn't matter to me one bit, it that these changes do nothing to remove artificial roadblocks to guilds like mine. These roadblocks were the real issue I've had with it. Anywhere else in the game you do not lose what you have gained because you went to the beach instead that day.

[Aons]

What does it matter how many level 100 guilds are out there? It doesn't actually mean anything.

Allowing anyone to reach a high level, easily, will help that. As Hendrik and I both said earlier, a guilds reputation, recruiting methods etc all play a much bigger factor in a guilds "status" rather than just some fabricated number.

Let everyone gain levels, without decay, enjoy their guild, enjoy their gains, enjoy their game.

The perception that a high-level guild number actually means something needs to die and be buried forever.

Nah, there must be a reason to grow up. Once at 100, what happens in that case? World is fixed. 100 is 100 forever? And Newbies joining this eternal level 100 guild will have the best offered service from beginning? Too strange for me to be understood and accepted.
It is obviously natural for me that renown can be earned and lost. High level guild should not be easy to reach, whatever is the size of the guild. It must be some decay, the process sounds logical. It sounds excessive too regarding the current mathematics.

[Tshober]

How fast anyone else levels doesn't matter to me one bit, it that these changes do nothing to remove artificial roadblocks to guilds like mine. These roadblocks were the real issue I've had with it. Anywhere else in the game you do not lose what you have gained because you went to the beach instead that day.

I agree with this statement. In fact, I have made very similar statements myself while advocating for eliminating renown decay. You seem to be in the worst possible position that a player in DDO can be. A very casual player who wants to be in a very small guild. My main reason for advocating for a change, like the change the devs recently made, is so that casual/social players would not be shunned by quite so many of the established guilds. I view greatly reducing renown decay as a huge step in the right direction. It seems to me that the only thing that would help players in your situation would be to go even further and eliminate decay entirely.

[Levonestral]

Nah, there must be a reason to grow up. Once at 100, what happens in that case? World is fixed. 100 is 100 forever? And Newbies joining this eternal level 100 guild will have the best offered service from beginning? Too strange for me to be understood and accepted.
It is obviously natural for me that renown can be earned and lost. High level guild should not be easy to reach, whatever is the size of the guild. It must be some decay, the process sounds logical. It sounds excessive too regarding the current mathematics.

I fully understand that view also, and somewhat agree.

The easiest path is to remove decay entirely which will remove a lot of other issues. Keeping decay is likely going to be the final solution from Turbine.

As a variation of decay however, a guild member of mine suggested using the ship items themselves as a version of decay. See the bottom of my original post here: http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...&postcount=151

That might be an option also, keeps decay, but allows guilds to choose (to a point) how much they wish to handle.