Guild Renown Changes

[chrisdinus7]

If casual/social players are made to feel unwelcome in DDO's guilds, it just makes it more likely they will leave DDO for a gaming environment that is more tolerant of their chosen playstyle. Virtually no other MMO has a guild decay system like DDO had before this recent change.




The best way to get people to play more is to make them feel welcome in the game and give them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. The guild decay system failed miserably on both of those counts.

This just changes who no longer feels that the game supports their play style. Now, you are being told to join a large guild or be doomed to slowly level (if at all) to get the benefits. It may change up some who is in the hot seat, but it is still the same problem.

[Tshober]

This just changes who no longer feels that the game supports their play style. Now, you are being told to join a large guild or be doomed to slowly level (if at all) to get the benefits. It may change up some who is in the hot seat, but it is still the same problem.

No guild of any size or of any playstyle is leveling any slower than they were before this change. I don't see how anyone has been harmed by this change in any way whatsoever. I do see a lot of gnashing of teeth about how large guilds might be able to level up faster. So what? How does that affect you or your guild in any way?

[chrisdinus7]

No guild of any size or of any playstyle is leveling any slower than they were before this change. I don't see how anyone has been harmed by this change in any way whatsoever. I do see a lot of gnashing of teeth about how large guilds might be able to level up faster. So what? How does that affect you or your guild in any way?

Meh - directly? I still have all the buffs just like before. Your point would be equally true if they just set every guild to level 100 and removed decay (effectively just removing guild levels). The problem with this is that it just like the old system encouraged kicking casual players, this system encourages creating horde guilds like I have seen other in MMOs. And since, IMO, those suck and are bad for the game, I'd rather not see that. So, I'd rather they just remove guild levels altogether over doing this.

[t0r012]

If casual/social players are made to feel unwelcome in DDO's guilds, it just makes it more likely they will leave DDO for a gaming environment that is more tolerant of their chosen playstyle. Virtually no other MMO has a guild decay system like DDO had before this recent change.




The best way to get people to play more is to make them feel welcome in the game and give them the freedom to play the game the way they want to play it. The guild decay system failed miserably on both of those counts.

Decay doesn't make casual players feel unwelcomed in DDO, only other players can make someone feel unwelcomed.
Sure yes having conflicting goals of a casual player and a guild that prioritizes activity over companionship is a problem but that would be a issue for that match regardless of decay, would it not?
Isn't that more a failure of a guilds recruiting practice than the decay system?

Are there not a lot of guilds in DDO as well as other games that prioritize activity and a level of achievement over social engagement?

I believe there are many casual guilds in DDO that do not place onus on activity that the casual player would be much better match for and would be plenty likely to find.

[t0r012]

No guild of any size or of any playstyle is leveling any slower than they were before this change. I don't see how anyone has been harmed by this change in any way whatsoever. I do see a lot of gnashing of teeth about how large guilds might be able to level up faster. So what? How does that affect you or your guild in any way?

This discussion shouldn't be about anyone's guild benefiting or being penalized directly but about the effect on the game as a whole.

Let me point something out here before I go any further no one will in anyway be "harmed" by any change to the guild system. No one will take physical injury no matter what happens.

yes large guilds might be able to level faster but, that isn't what the priority should be here, nor should it be about slowing down small guilds or any of that. it should be about what would be best for the game as a whole.
What IU see as best for the game as a whole is getting more people active, engaged and playing.
Simply changing a formula to benefit large guilds to make it easier on them may , or may not accomplish that goal.
I am more inclined to believe that simply changing the formula so that it is easier for large guilds to level a bit faster will be counter productive to that goal.
To my mind that will allow large guilds to reduce their efforts to engage their current membership and still gain more rewards at the same pace or better than they had previously.
That doesn't seem to help at all with the idea that we want a more active player base and just give guilds more for less.
==========================

I should say here I am in a small friends/family guild that is in the low 40s so I have zero experience with what the decay is like in a large guild.

Our goals are simple , play to have fun, renown and buffs are just a token favor of our accomplishments. We would play just the same without them.

I understand that many feel differently and to them having the biggest ship with the best buffs is just how they wish to play. I see that as perfectly legitimate goal in someways even enviable to the part of me that is a powergamer.
to that I say if your current guild is not accomplishing that goal perhaps instead of just asking for a change to the renown system start or join a guild, or adjust your own so that those goals can be accomplished.

[EllisDee37]

We're still looking into possible future changes. Today's change was something we could feasibly try sooner rather than later, and potentially solve one Guild issue we perceived, which was the feeling that some Guild members would need to be kicked for the good of the guild as a whole in order to advance the guild.

This is a great change for Mabar, at very least.

It's fine to base renown decay on account size in principle; the problem was that everyone counted every day. You could return to a size-based decay if you moved it from guild level to account level.

As in, each day, the first time I log in on one of my alts, I incur decay. This decay is told to me in a (Guild) or (Standard) message, whichever makes the most sense. For example: "(Guild) Your renown decay today is 1,671." Now I know that I need 1671 renown this session to hold my own.

The key is that it only happens on login. So if I go on vacation for a week, I incur no decay at all. Or if I'm just a casual player who only logs in on weekends, the guild has no incentive to boot me for hurting them during the week.

This would take actual development time, as opposed to flipping a switch, but maybe it would help address some of the concerns people have. In any case, your quickie band-aid approach to get something started immediately is aces in my book. Kudos.

[moops]

Small and medium guilds will still exist, because we like playing with our friends, and no drama. Mass recruit guilds will get a rep, elitists will still be elitists and not want to group with guilds like that.

I hold the star in a medium sized lvl 88 guild, and I have never kicked anyone at all. I have people who leave the game for 6+ months at a time, a few who only sign in a couple times a month-- people with F2p mules. We have friends who haven't logged on in 2 years that we haven't kicked...I personally like to see their name on the roster to remember old times.

It's strange how differently I look at what a guild should be compared to others.

I don't think that any of us in guild have ever really given a lot of thought to reknown...we just play. This change won't affect us at all, because we don't think about it, and really there is no point to being in a high level guild. For those super dependent on ship buffs, lvl 60 is all you will ever need.

Sure we do have some top notch really good players, but we all play for fun. And even tho many of us have reduced our playtime greatly/ or farm non reknown things, we still do OK with reknown because of the way we use our time.

I have to leave pugs because the want to go and get ship buffs after every single quest...this takes them longer than most quests take to do--as well as for 99% of content buffs just don't matter, esp with the way the game is now--3- 5% xp shrine is nice, but not if you could've finished 2 quests in the time it took for you to recall to get it. If I only have an hour or so to play, I want to play the game not sit there while it takes people 20 mins to d*ck around and get buffs.

I do applaud the devs for addressing an issue that upset so many forumites.

[Tshober]

Decay doesn't make casual players feel unwelcomed in DDO, only other players can make someone feel unwelcomed.
Sure yes having conflicting goals of a casual player and a guild that prioritizes activity over companionship is a problem but that would be a issue for that match regardless of decay, would it not?
Isn't that more a failure of a guilds recruiting practice than the decay system?

Yes, people made those anti-social decisions. But the decay system encouraged and rewarded that behavior and it should not have.

Are there not a lot of guilds in DDO as well as other games that prioritize activity and a level of achievement over social engagement?

Sure there are. But those guilds that choose to prioritize social engagement should not be prohibited from advancing. And that is what the decay system did. No other part of DDO prohibits casual/social players from advancing and for good reason.

I believe there are many casual guilds in DDO that do not place onus on activity that the casual player would be much better match for and would be plenty likely to find.

Not nearly as many as there should be and all of them were prohibited from advancing for no good reason. Again, no other part of DDO prevents casual/social players from advancing and this change in decay policy brings guild leveling into line with all other parts of DDO.

[Deathdefy]

I can't really speak to big guild experiences, being that my guild has 3 accounts in it; 1 of which is very casual.

We're ever-so-slowly creeping up to 66, but I don't think it's remotely possible that we'll ever hit 70 much less 80 due to the minimum guild size for decay being set to 10 in the formula.

Since it's being discussed, I'd like to submit that the minimum guild size for decay be flat out removed.

While guilds with 6 - 9 accounts can just power through the 'guild size = 10' decay, the really small real-life-friends only guilds with 1 - 5 accounts struggle to even offset decay.

The formula already has a hard "+ 10" modifier on the end which seems a sufficient insurance against exploitation.

Account Multiplier = (Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )

Whilst I'd like it removed entirely, even tiering the system such that
1 - 4 accounts has modified guild size = 4
5 - 8 accounts has modified guild size = 8
9 - 10 accounts has modified guild size = 10
or something would be great.

I appreciate the counter argument is something about enforcing sociability if you want the best buffs, but these tiny guilds are primarily people who simply aren't going to join a large guild anyway. It will also still take a much, much longer time to reach the levels of the top airships.

While smaller guilds get guild bonuses over renown (with 3 people, we have +210% which is the same as a 12 person guild. We could artificially inflate our guild with dummy accounts to 6 people for a maximum bonus of 300% but that's disingenous and unfun meta-gaming that doesn't to appeal me, and I suspect most people in these sorts of guilds).

The overnight downer of seeing ~10 000 renown lost just isn't fun - especially when it represents the majority, or more than the entire sum of a day's earned renown.

There would be a much greater sense of progress and enjoyment for tiny guild players with lessened bonuses for being small and no disappointment when renown drops massively overnight.

[t0r012]

This is a great change for Mabar, at very least.

It's fine to base renown decay on account size in principle; the problem was that everyone counted every day. You could return to a size-based decay if you moved it from guild level to account level.

As in, each day, the first time I log in on one of my alts, I incur decay. This decay is told to me in a (Guild) or (Standard) message, whichever makes the most sense. For example: "(Guild) Your renown decay today is 1,671." Now I know that I need 1671 renown this session to hold my own.

The key is that it only happens on login. So if I go on vacation for a week, I incur no decay at all. Or if I'm just a casual player who only logs in on weekends, the guild has no incentive to boot me for hurting them during the week.

This would take actual development time, as opposed to flipping a switch, but maybe it would help address some of the concerns people have. In any case, your quickie band-aid approach to get something started immediately is aces in my book. Kudos.

I like your idea about the guild message giving your renown decay total for the day. that maybe just enough incentive for some to do that one extra dungeon.

I can't agree with the idea of only having decay on days when a player logs in. What incentive does the guild have then to engage you and to get you to play more frequently for longer, thus benefiting the game as a whole?
That is all carrot and no stick for the guild to do their part.

==========

Yes the current system might be a bit too much stick and not enough carrot.

What do we think the best middle ground would be for a system to be a bit less harsh while still encouraging guilds to do their part to earn their rewards?

Should the decay system get a modifier to lessen the decay based on consistency over time. Something that doesn't sting quite as much for the guilds that invite weekend warriors who only play on weekends or a few sporadically over weeks but usually for a roughly equal amount of time?

maybe give lapsed players a small incentive to their renown gathering if after a moderately extended absence if their activity returns to normal or increases compared to their average pre absence?

I would fear going too far but something to reduce the possible guilt someone would feel if they stayed away a while too long and feared the guild would blame them. this would also give the guild some incentive to keep the player longer and perhaps even attempt to entice them back before too much time has elapsed.

[Tshober]

So, I'd rather they just remove guild levels altogether over doing this.

I would actually be okay with no levels too. Not because I have an aversion to really large guilds but because it would make guild membership decisions be about how you want to play and who you want to play with, not about guild leveling. Even with no guild levels, I would still be the leader of a very large, pretty casual/social guild, just like those you hate so much, because that is the way I like to play.

[t0r012]

Yes, people made those anti-social decisions. But the decay system encouraged and rewarded that behavior and it should not have.





Sure there are. But those guilds that choose to prioritize social engagement should not be prohibited from advancing. And that is what the decay system did. No other part of DDO prohibits casual/social players from advancing and for good reason.





Not nearly as many as there should be and all of them were prohibited from advancing for no good reason. Again, no other part of DDO prevents casual/social players from advancing and this change in decay policy brings guild leveling into line with all other parts of DDO.

They have the freedom to join another guild if they wish more advancement, or choose to become more active.
they are not prohibited from advancing.
Only their lack of activity is the limiting factor, which is the whole point of having a renown system as a mechanic to encourage activity.

just giving free benefits to every guild does not benefit the playerbase as a whole , the game itself or turbine in anyway.

[chrisdinus7]

I would actually be okay with no levels too. Not because I have an aversion to really large guilds but because it would make guild membership decisions be about how you want to play and who you want to play with, not about guild leveling. Even with no guild levels, I would still be the leader of a very large, pretty casual/social guild, just like those you hate so much, because that is the way I like to play.

I don't hate them in the slightest. And we both agree that no levels would be good. It *feels* like they are trying to social engineer us with this change, and that is what is irking me. I completely agree that guild membership should be about social relations and not leveling. My guild is also about social relations (we all know each other in real life), and we have some very casual players and people who have to go inactive for long stretches of time due to military service. My problem isn't the affect on already existing large guilds.

I dislike the proposal because instead of making it about supporting casual players or removing the social engineering aspect - they are instead reversing the problem and rewarding us for playing in large guilds. I'd rather they removed levels altogether, and just let us playing the guild sizes we like. You can have your large guild, I can have small guild, and neither of us would have to worry about getting pressure to improve advancement by changing membership policies - either kicking casuals under the old system, or recruiting randoms under the new system.

Basically, just like large guilds didn't like to feel pressure to kick people to generate advancement, I don't want pressure to grab more people just for the purpose of generating advancement. I had previously assumed that the devs wanted a limited number of level 100 guilds. But since they are now saying that they don't really see an issue with it, just remove the levels and give everyone the buffs. We can all be on equal footing then and create the guilds that match our styles.

[Deathdefy]

They have the freedom to join another guild if they wish more advancement, or choose to become more active.
they are not prohibited from advancing.
Only their lack of activity is the limiting factor, which is the whole point of having a renown system as a mechanic to encourage activity.

just giving free benefits to every guild does not benefit the playerbase as a whole , the game itself or turbine in anyway.

I don't think the whole point of having a renown system is to be 'a mechanic to encourage activity'.

The renown system's main goal, I'm very confident in asserting, is to fulfill the MMO staple of creating another 'feeling of progression'.

Giving away free benefits to every guild would indeed benefit the playerbase as a whole provided they felt they had 'earned them' since it would make the game more enjoyable for everyone to play.

The question that I'm guessing is facing the devs is if that 'feeling of progression' is not happening under the current model.

You don't want everyone to be 100, since:
- then no one's progressing, and
- there's no satisfaction in being comparatively better than anyone else (which is probably also essential)
but you also don't want the current stagnation.

Being satisfied with a solution that forces people into 'active guilds' and 'non-advancing guilds' would be acknowledging partial defeat on an winnable issue.

[Virella]

seems to be a move in the wrong direction of handling this, now making guilds that want to level be forced to recruit people to get numbers up, rather than getting rid of the dead wood that was clogging their guilds up. maybe renown decay of a set amount maybe half what you have it set at now+ an amount per person capped at the full amount that person earned that day. that way you don't have to kick the casuals, your keeping the balance between small and large guilds without two heavily favoring massive guild size to level your guild, this seems to be the best of both worlds, the casuals wont hurt their guilds and may help them, if they play enough in a day to offset that days renown decay.

[9Crows]

this thread is dominated by people stateng large guilds are all about lvling or reaching 100 and that this change promotes that..

there is a small group that state the real reason for large guilds... its about meeting alot of new people and having a varied pool of players to play with at all times .. without thier being negative repercusions for being this way ..


some people think this game is abouit fun not gear not guild lvls but fun the previos system punished that type of thinking

[Virella]

the point i think most are trying to make is that this system they just implemented is going to heavily favor large or very large guilds, when the current average guild size is from what i have seen around 10-30 people at least on cannith. it was a competition atleast to some of us to rise to the top of the list, with this change the only ones going to be there are going to be massive and no one will be able to keep up with them

[Cyiwin]

It's a complex problem. We need to first understand what the goals are before we can zero in on helpful suggestions. Otherwise we're just spitballing.

[jejeba86]

According to what has been said, and the wiki, renown decay will be ten times the guild level multiplier.
As of now, a booted player can take 25% of gained renown. Maybe up that percentage to 75%? Or something that decreases over time.

[Scrootaype]

I lead a level 71, nearly 72 guild on Argo.

We've been around for almost two years and have always kept "effective" membership to 30 or fewer players/accounts. The purpose has been so that we can play and advance as a guild steadily without having to grind for renown or worry about decay.

I have to say that if decay is going to continue to be a mechanism, now having it without respect to guild membership size is a mistake and will punish smaller-sized but advanced-level guilds because of per-player decay. It now clearly will favor large-sized guilds of any level frankly unless renown bonuses can be scaled commensurately.

We've been deliberate in how we've run our guild, and to be honest this change is discouraging as it will in some measure enable or reward the "Korthos Army" approach already mentioned.

Decay, if it is kept, should reflect what the word truly means: to break down or decompose. I personally think decay should be calculated largely in terms of the number of inactive or 3 week+ absent members a guild has, reflecting the fact that the guild has declined or ..ahem.. decayed from its past, active state.

So perhaps decay is defined as inactive accounts or 3 weeks+ inactive as a percentage of total account membership at any particular time. And then perhaps renown bonuses can be based on the % of membership that plays daily or weekly.

So large guilds aren't punished if they keep their inactive roster clean, small guilds aren't punished likewise. And the more people play, the faster a guild can get bonuses to growth.