Guild Renown Changes

[theslimshady]

You missed some. I have made at least 2 in at least 2 threads myself about it being a noticeable decrease in drops hitting us when we hit 51 and wanted the buffer.


My Number pre change = X
My number post change = X

Fill in your favourite value for X (I like 12, for ladybug picnics and such) it doesn't matter as it hasn't changed. The post of mine on the last page you ignored or skipped over explained this.

The fact some get Y% off of X now is good and there is no reason ALL shouldn't get Y% off X if X has to exist at all.

i am truely sorry if i did miss 1 or 2 but i think to be honest i think you was the only one that said it on any post
i am currently leveling a small side guild on the side for some real data on this issue and so far i can absolutely say at 3 levels per day renown stops that is true i am keeping it small and hopefully in a few more days i can get into ship and decay levels because so far i didnt really see a overwhelming difference with drops per 1 level i mean maybe a little at 2 levels

[DocBenway]

i am truely sorry if i did miss 1 or 2 but i think to be honest i think you was the only one that said it on any post
i am currently leveling a small side guild on the side for some real data on this issue and so far i can absolutely say at 3 levels per day renown stops that is true i am keeping it small and hopefully in a few more days i can get into ship and decay levels because so far i didnt really see a overwhelming difference with drops per 1 level i mean maybe a little at 2 levels

I saw at least one other mention it, probably in a locked thread and also at least one fellow wondering why, since decay had decreased, they kept losing their level. As in they weren't paying attention to the numbers and didn't ensure to play enough to get a buffer when the 50% drop reduction kicks in after leveling. They'd then decay back, re-level and the ransack 50% would kick in. They didn't even know that part kicked in before 3 levels.

What I did notice is that, since February when I discovered the hard coded size 10 and asked about it with still no reply, running Giant's Vault had a reward of 2 items and Renown. Always.

After we leveled to 51, 3 consecutive characters, levels 19, 20 and 20 got reward lists of 2 items and no renown. Of those 3, 2 of those vault runs gave nothing but kill renown, none in chest, and at most 15 three times. The 3rd character got 1 heroic deed in 1/5 chests. The main reason I run vault as much as I do is to counter decay and even bad runs usually have 2 chest of 5 with renown tokens. This is why I say it is noticeable from our 1 leveling experience post change.

[theslimshady]

The point is that small guilds should also get a decay reduction. I would like to see the complete removal of decay.

valid statement

This is not fear mongering. Around 100 people from small guilds commented and there were many common themes:

i am not sure you represent any of the other 99 guilds

You simply want to silence the small guild viewpoint so your guild can thrive while small guilds stall. Those of us in small guilds will not accept that.

not true i am just tring to understand the logic in this drama filled debate
the new system has every guild needing the same amount of renown gained to level
the new system has every guild having the same amount of decay for the level they are on

there is truly no amount of size 1-1000 that is favored

i really see no other way to have a more even system

the only things that are different in anyway are
guild bonuses and these i think are the only thing left over that even remotely distigush a unfair advantage for any guild size so the true math would be

the new system has every guild needing the same amount of renown gained {except small and meduim guilds they get renown bonuses }
the new system has every guild have the same amount of decay per level there guild is on

this sir is a factual statement of the state of the renown system

[theslimshady]

I saw at least one other mention it, probably in a locked thread and also at least one fellow wondering why, since decay had decreased, they kept losing their level. As in they weren't paying attention to the numbers and didn't ensure to play enough to get a buffer when the 50% drop reduction kicks in after leveling. They'd then decay back, re-level and the ransack 50% would kick in. They didn't even know that part kicked in before 3 levels.

What I did notice is that, since February when I discovered the hard coded size 10 and asked about it with still no reply, running Giant's Vault had a reward of 2 items and Renown. Always.

After we leveled to 51, 3 consecutive characters, levels 19, 20 and 20 got reward lists of 2 items and no renown. Of those 3, 2 of those vault runs gave nothing but kill renown, none in chest, and at most 15 three times. The 3rd character got 1 heroic deed in 1/5 chests. The main reason I run vault as much as I do is to counter decay and even bad runs usually have 2 chest of 5 with renown tokens. This is why I say it is noticeable from our 1 leveling experience post change.

yes i think this could be a issue and i think the idea of megaguilds taken over scared everyone into beleaving this could be a issue so thats why they put it in i hope they do at least bump it up to 2 cause i dont think outside of fast moving low levels that one level gain warrents this kinda attention anyway

[DocBenway]

the new system has every guild needing the same amount of renown gained {except small and meduim guilds they get renown bonuses }
the new system has every guild have the same amount of decay per level there guild is on

this sir is a factual statement of the state of the renown system

It is also factual to say that every guild except small got a reduction in decay per player because small were treated unfairly when the system had a per player standard. The fact that the change doesn't change a pre-existing unfairness, given what was described as being fair, is the issue. When it was decay per player, which is how the system worked until the changes, Any guild under 10 was hit with more decay than what the devs said was "fair" based on their decay / player model.

Now everyone over active size 10 gets an exponentially increasing reduction in the decay / player benchmark system, and small guilds are still stuck with more decay / player than everyone else, compounded and multiplied by others reduction.

It is factual to say that those who were truly treated unfairly by the size benchmarks of the old system have received no relief and the moving of the benchmark only made their relative performance worse. Decay at actual size as advertised by Turbine until it was proven false in February, and you'd not have any stink from small guilds now, since they would also have received a "reduction" in decay to what, ironically, was what was advertised as what was supposed to be their decay under the old system.

Given the only benchmarks provided by Turbine, small guilds were screwed before and a new system that changes nothing for them leaves them just as screwed after. The new system is better than the old, but that's like saying I'd rather lose my pinky than my thumb. Better than bad isn't good, it's just not worse.

[eris2323]

We banked renown before our last level up and that seemed to work well. We leveled 30 min before decay hit so we had reduced decay for 24 hours and 2 decay hits in 24.5 hours. Even with alot of renown banked, it was still a challenge to keep from dropping back until we built up some cushion which took a while.

The real problem is when you gain a level, drop a level and take some time to actually hold the level. Depending on how many times you level up and drop-down, you can lose alot of renown to this.

No, the real problem is 3 casual players are trying to level up a high level guild, and refuse to actually play the game, but instead, come on here and try to argue that they should have it easier. Meanwhile, their leader refuses to give any useful numbers, and just throws out math that he is making HUGE assumptions on, and trying to pass off as fact. Many people have noticed this, many have tried to explain, and the gentleman is now reduced to saying things like 'I don't want to talk to anyone in large guilds anymore'. Last weekend, when I had a lot of time, I noticed that during my checks (say, every 5 minutes, for about 12 hours) - no one in your guild had logged in at all, beyond a minute here or there - certainly not enough time do much questing! On a weekend. Maybe you guys just need to play a little more.

You're wasting all of our time.

Big problem.

What gives you the right to post, and none of the rest of us?

This is what being part of a community is all about. Here, in this massive multiplayer game.

Please, devs, if you're still listening - before taking anything slarden says seriously, go look at the stats on his guild, and the active players, and how much time has been spent actually playing the game.

You don't have to tell us. Just look it up for yourselves.

[eris2323]

Exactly the same place as we are now. I haven't stopped saying the system sucks. It sucks less now for some and sucks just as much as before for others. I have been trying to get an answer to the minimum decay size since February, where were you? Oh yeah, not affected by it. Just like you wouldn't be affected if small guilds get a similar reduction in decay that you got.

So I ask again, what vested interest do you have in the suffering of others that you wish it to continue? I mean trying to get the system changed and a "where were you" cry implies a fight against injustice. Well that injustice still exists, you just happen to be out of cage and firmly planting yourself on the other side of the gate to try and ensure no one else gets out of the cage.

I've already stated I don't consider 3 casual players to be a real guild, and that is my stance; I don't believe solo and tiny guilds should get any more advantage than they already have, because I believe it hurts our society in game when any single player can solo their way to GUILD level 100.

It cheapens the experience for all; and with a world full of kings, who will be the knights?

Or to put it into grade school terms... 'ITS STUPID OKAY'

[DocBenway]

I've already stated I don't consider 3 casual players to be a real guild, and that is my stance;

And also irrelevant as you get to define no ones guild but your own.

I don't believe solo and tiny guilds should get any more advantage than they already have, because I believe it hurts our society in game.

They have less "advantage" now than they had under the original system that Turbine deemed "fair." Any "advantage" is illusion due to math making the extremely improbable entirely possible. I've always said throw the bonus out the window as long as decay goes with it.

What "society" in game is hurting due to small guilds. The fact they may have to pug more to fill spots? More LFMs sounds horrible for society. Right now small guilds don't hurt you one bit and reducing their decay similarly to the reduction everyone else got will hurt you, and society, not one bit.

[eris2323]

And also irrelevant as you get to define no ones guild but your own.


They have less "advantage" now than they had under the original system that Turbine deemed "fair." Any "advantage" is illusion due to math making the extremely improbable entirely possible. I've always said throw the bonus out the window as long as decay goes with it.

What "society" in game is hurting due to small guilds. The fact they may have to pug more to fill spots? More LFMs sounds horrible for society. Right now small guilds don't hurt you one bit and reducing their decay similarly to the reduction everyone else got will hurt you, and society, not one bit.

Actually, apparently - Turbine defines the guilds - which they have done.

I don't believe it should be any easier for 1, 2, or 3 casual players to equal the activity and work a large guild has.

By making it easier for solo and tiny guilds, they then shift the game BACK towards them - I mean, if 3 casual players can easily get to 100, why wouldn't everyone want to be the king of their guild?

Then we'll have less guilds that actually, you know, do things like organize large guild raids, set up teamspeak servers for social events, set up webpages, and other stuff that most people just won't do for their tiny guild.

It is good to have large guilds - we can assign people to do these tasks - if there is just 3 people in a tiny guild, they will likely have a sub-par guild experience inside ddo - if they join one of these billions of tiny guilds that are likely to pop up.

They will think DDO is stupid, and empty, because all guilds are tiny, and empty, and no one is ever online when they log in. So they will get bored, and log off, and go play another game, and we just lost another potential player in our massive multiplayer game. And turbine loses any future possible income from that player.

And I believe that will hurt the game.

And that is why I am against any further benefits for solo and tiny guilds, and believe the system should be tested for at least 6 months before any further changes.

[DocBenway]

Actually, apparently - Turbine defines the guilds - which they have done.

I don't believe it should be any easier for 1, 2, or 3 casual players to equal the activity and work a large guild has.

By making it easier for solo and tiny guilds, they then shift the game towards those - I mean, if 3 casual players can easily get to 100, why wouldn't everyone want to be the king of their guild?

Then we'll have less guilds that actually, you know, do things like organize large guild raids, set up teamspeak servers for social events, set up webpages, and other stuff that most people just won't do for their tiny guild.

It is good to have large guilds - we can assign people to do these tasks - if there is just 3 people in a tiny guild, they will likely have a sub-par guild experience inside ddo - if they join one of these billions of tiny guilds that are likely to pop up.

They will think DDO is stupid, and empty, because all guilds are tiny, and empty, and no one is ever online when they log in.

And I believe that will hurt the game.

There is a lot of problems with this perception. First the repeated 3 casual players easily getting to 100. This is definitely not the case as my 2 to 21 casual players have taken 2.5 years to get to 51. We chose our guild as it existed prior to renown over anything renown tried to change us to and suffered for being mostly casual. An outlying 1/100th of 1% of small guilds would easily (relative term) get to 100 playing casually (relative term), that doesn't mean everyone can or that easy and casual even mean the same thing. I'll add that on this server, characters with birthday cakes did not need any +2 tomes. 45 BTA Medium Guild Renown elixirs made our getting to 51 take maybe a week less than it would have without.

You also seem to think that people who would be in "3 people guilds" are not there by choice. If they like their guild with X people they shouldn't be arm-twisted into X+Y or X-Y and likely won't think DDO is stupid as they log on to a guild how they like it.

As far as your perception of gathering capacity and bonus. The 1, 2 or 3 example you give, none of those case does the bonus = the accepted per player decay since the inception of the system. A 3 player guild with bonus of 210% gathers like 9.3 people and decays at 10. A 2 player guild with bonus gathers like 5 (4.8) people and decays at 10.

A 1 person guild gathers like 2 and a half men (Sheen, not Kutcher) and decays at 10.

[eris2323]

There is a lot of problems with this perception. First the repeated 3 casual players easily getting to 100. This is definitely not the case as my 2 to 21 casual players have taken 2.5 years to get to 51. We chose our guild as it existed prior to renown over anything renown tried to change us to and suffered for being mostly casual. An outlying 1/100th of 1% of small guilds would easily (relative term) get to 100 playing casually (relative term), that doesn't mean everyone can or that easy and casual even mean the same thing. I'll add that on this server, characters with birthday cakes did not need any +2 tomes. 45 BTA Medium Guild Renown elixirs made our getting to 51 take maybe a week less than it would have without.

You also seem to think that people who would be in "3 people guilds" are not there by to choice. If they like their guild with X people they shouldn't be arm-twisted into X+Y or X-Y and likely won't think DDO is stupid as they log on to a guild how they like it.

As far as your perception of gathering capacity and bonus. The 1, 2 or 3 example you give, none of those case does the bonus = the accepted per player decay since the inception of the system. A 3 player guild with bonus of 210% gathers like 9.3 people and decays at 10. A 2 player guild with bonus gathers like 5 (4.8) people and decays at 10.

A 1 person guild gathers like 2 and a half men (Sheen, not Kutcher) and decays at 10.

You asked why, I gave you why.

I'm sorry, my position can't be changed by repeated arguments.

I've thought about this for 2 years. Every day. All of my predictions have come true. Especially after MOTU came out. All my predictions have come true.

This is what I believe. You'll have to argue for more than 2 years, with data every day

Good luck on that.

[eris2323]

Future predictions:

The return of the absolutely newbie-friendly training guilds

Fear mongers who will try to convince us that this is bad

More arguments from people in tiny guilds who want it even easier for casual players to reach level 100 in a tiny or solo guild!

Me arguing against #3! (you can all prove this one wrong by stopping #3 from happening - c'mon, prove me wrong)

[DocBenway]

You asked why, I gave you why.

I'm sorry, my position can't be changed by repeated arguments.

I've thought about this for 2 years. Every day. All of my predictions have come true. Especially after MOTU came out. All my predictions have come true.

This is what I believe. You'll have to argue for more than 2 years, with data every day

Good luck on that.

I just pointed how the why was flawed. I need do no more than that. Convincing you isn't my goal, though if it did happen it'd be awfully sunshinepuppiesandrainbows or something. As long as the argument is countered reasonably when important developer eyes skim, like I hope they still are, that's all that matters.

All views are important, I just don't see why eliminating decay for all or reducing it for all is some kind of injustice. Take their old formula and add an IF for MGS <10 that sets decay at 5 (15 in the formula) or something. Then more people get relief but 1-4 are still screwed. Is that enough suffering for you or does it absolutely have to be 1-9 that get hit for more than Turbine ever admitted 1 player should "cost"?

[Gremmlynn]

As for your desire to boot people and keep 75% of their renown - I disagree. The person that is getting booted also loses something for a decision that may or may not be a fair decision. They have no control over that decision. The 100% penalty is a much better way to make sure that booting is done fairly. Booting should be the exception in which case it should have minimal impact.

This is about where I stand on the issue. Boot someone and they lose their guild, the guild loses their renown. If that means the guild loses three levels, well those are the three levels the booted person earned.

The only problem with this right now is that decay skews the balance on this.

[eris2323]

I just pointed how the why was flawed. I need do no more than that. Convincing you isn't my goal, though if it did happen it'd be awfully sunshinepuppiesandrainbows or something. As long as the argument is countered reasonably when important developer eyes skim, like I hope they still are, that's all that matters.

All views are important, I just don't see why eliminating decay for all or reducing it for all is some kind of injustice. Take their old formula and add an IF for MGS <10 that sets decay at 5 (15 in the formula) or something. Then more people get relief but 1-4 are still screwed. Is that enough suffering for you or does it absolutely have to be 1-9 that get hit for more than Turbine ever admitted 1 player should "cost"?

I'd disagree that you 'countered an argument reasonably' - you just presented a different view. My view is just as important as yours.

And I believe, personally, that the only thing that would force a change in the renown system to begin with is loss of revenue of some sort for Turbine.

So I believe they found a problem; they were losing money. They re-examined their goals and systems.

They found them broken, and have attempted to fix it.

The old system was skewed towards small guilds; so I suspect that is why the new system is skewed towards large guilds.

I suspect they agree that large guilds are good for the game, all in all - and small guilds are fine.

Good to have beliefs, isn't it?


No worries on that.

[slarden]

The old system was skewed towards small guilds; so I suspect that is why the new system is skewed towards large guilds.

It is good that we can at least agree that the new system is skewed towards large guilds. The old system was slightly skewed towards small guilds because of a flaw in the decay formula which was min (accounts + 10, 20) but should have been min (accounts* small guild bonus, 20). This flaw resulted in a 20-30% lower decay rate per member for small guilds vs. large guilds.

It took a while to noitce this because large guilds advanced quickly in the beginning.

While the old system slightly favored small guilds with decay, the new system highly favors large guilds. Can't we just fix it for everyone or get rid of it?

By the way, as for your earlier comment, I would aprpeciate it and welcome it if the devs want to take a closer look at my guild.

[Gremmlynn]

I don't think the limit or lack of new players plays to the fear as much as someone building a guild of 10 (so far) for 6 months, just managed 25 and dumped cash on a Stormglory finds their ranks pilfered by "Level 85 Guild, recruitment doors wide open" folks. They fear the quick access to what would take them 5 years to get, if they don't decay too much and make it 6 years, will tempt their members away.

The most important things a guild has to offer, IMO, have nothing to do with guild levels.

I rather doubt many players who are satisfied with the effectiveness of their guilds leadership and activity level of their guild would leave for a few minor buffs. At least not many players that would be much missed.

[DocBenway]

I'd disagree that you 'countered an argument reasonably' - you just presented a different view. My view is just as important as yours.

And I believe, personally, that the only thing that would force a change in the renown system to begin with is loss of revenue of some sort for Turbine.

So I believe they found a problem; they were losing money. They re-examined their goals and systems.

Showing that an advantage doesn't exist, an assumption of motivation has no basis in fact and your example of everyone is as inclusive as 1950s Golf clubs is pretty much countered reasonably, yeah. It may be a point of view that it isn't reasonable or based in fact, but needing to be heard as an example of 0 good reasons not to eliminate decay all together or reduce it for everyone and that small guilds aren't sacrificing goats to the horned bonus gods for some kind of "effect others gaming experience with my possible gains for no logical reason" curse.

Making sure that some people have the opportunity to buy a minimum of 10,000 TP worth of astral diamonds for the biggest ship rather than have all people fork out that cash value makes financial sense how?

When the only recent statement put out regarding sizes said there was no intention to promote any size guild, it is important that feedback regarding promoting these sizes, large or small, is on topic an valuable. Illogical "small guilds are evil with their non existent advantage and any reduction for them is like a dagger in my heart" posts from those who have gotten relief fit in this category. No need to point out why they should get a reduction when reasons they shouldn't can be shown to make little or no sense.

[slarden]

The most important things a guild has to offer, IMO, have nothing to do with guild levels.

I rather doubt many players who are satisfied with the effectiveness of their guilds leadership and activity level of their guild would leave for a few minor buffs. At least not many players that would be much missed.

I think the issue is that a if a large guild can get to 100 and a small guild will hit a ceiling at 60, 70, 80 or wherever - the decision may not be based on how much they like the guild, but rather the reality that the system is designed in a way that prevents small guilds from leveling but not large guilds. We considered the idea of merging, but ultimately rejected it.

I think it boils down to the person and the guild. Some people are solo players in whatever guild they are in- large or small. Others are in the guild for other reasons.

I think the system should be changed because it is right and fair.

[smatt]

If you want to be 100 in your little guild...... Then do what the rest of us have been doing since airships came out.... Oh wait you don't WANT to actually do that...... You just want everything handed to you on a little platter.... I want my solo 1-25 to be as easy and fast as a group of 6 can do it... I want to solo every quest in the game as fast as a group of 6 can do it... I want, I want, life isn't fair,.....

I hear they're going to start selling airships in the store though.....

Big one will cost you 500k TPs...