Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

This is pretty absurd. Without guild renown what will happen is that me and my friends (hypothetical because I have no friends, but others and their friends) would do whatever it takes to get to maximum guild level with the biggest ship and best amenities. Then we would kick out everyone but the chosen few.

We'd enjoy the benefits of success and those on the outside would be left calling us a bunch of names that won't get past the obscenity filters.
.

That was the fastest way to level up a guild before this change as well. The only differnce is you started kicking them sooner, as soon has the decay started to slow you down significantly. And you graduated it so that the least active got kicked first and it was spread out enough so that the cost of kicking didn't hurt you much. But it is essentially the same strategy. Guild leaders have gone to the forums and admitted they did it that way and said it was very effective.

I agree they have done nothing substantial to address this but, again, neither did the old system really.

[blkcat1028]

How do you figure? The way I understand it, guilds of 1-10 accounts will see no change in decay, and the way I ran the figures, 11-29 accounts will see a benefit, but not to the point of half decay. Only size 30 or larger would see a rate of half or lower, with the mega-sized guilds getting a benefit of 1/50th of previous decay.

I'm using the formula in the wiki as my guide. If that's wrong then so am I.

The old formula was (modified guild size + 10)(guild Level Modifier) = Decay. The minimum guild level for this calculation was set at 10. The new formula for guilds with less than 10 members is (Guild level modifier * 10) = decay. The multiplier was reduced by half, so it would mean that for guilds of that size the decay half of what it was before.



Again, how do you figure? The spread of small guild bonus is tiny compared to the spread of guild sizes. Run the numbers, more is better, at every single step.

I never said more wasn't better. I said it wasn't so much better as to make small guilds obsolete.

edit: I wanted to add this section from the first post just to emphasize my point...

If you look at a level 100 guild with 14, the decay would have been 81,000. Now it's 33,750 for any level 100 guild. That's still a bunch but it's doable. With 100 members that's 337 renown per account daily. So 2 tales of valor and one heroic deed per day to maintain your current renown. With 14 members it's 2,411 renown per account. With the small guild bonus we need to each pull 2 impressive trophies daily to offset the loss.



810,000? Where did that number come from? This change only lowers a 14-account guild decay by a factor of 5/6.

The number came from me being zero happy and sliding the decimal place one point to the right.

The correct figure is 81,000.

Remarks in red

[Tshober]

What we do not need, and I hope what nobody wants, are guilds that do not have that kind of in game respect earning unmerited Turbine guild renown because there is no form of guild renown decay. Getting rid of decay is bad for DDO.
.

How, exactly, will having all guilds eventually able to reach level 100 harm DDO? Please spell it out. It is easy to see the harm that decay does to DDO's social structure because it so obviously encourages and rewards guilds that shun casual/social players. But exactly what are the problems that you claim its absence will create? Who will be harmed and how?

[DocBenway]

Remarks in red

The formula was (MAX(Mod Acc Size, 10)+10) * lvl Multiplier.

Now it is (MAX(NULL,10)+10) * lvl Multiplier. ---- This is basically works out to 20 * lvl Multiplier. That is the minimum anyone decayed before, it is now also the maximum.

[blkcat1028]

The formula was (MAX(Mod Acc Size, 10)+10) * lvl Multiplier.

Now it is (MAX(NULL,10)+10) * lvl Multiplier. ---- This is basically works out to 20 * lvl Multiplier. That is the minimum anyone decayed before, it is now also the maximum.

This is from the wiki,

The formula for renown decay is a level-based multiplier times an account-based multiplier (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier). The account-based multiplier is the Modified Guild Size + 10. The level-based multiplier can be looked up in the list below.
Note: Minimum Modified Guild Size is 10! Account-based multiplier is therefore ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )

I read it as modified guild size or 10.

You make me wonder though...

[DocBenway]

This is from the wiki,

The formula for renown decay is a level-based multiplier times an account-based multiplier (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier). The account-based multiplier is the Modified Guild Size + 10. The level-based multiplier can be looked up in the list below.
Note: Minimum Modified Guild Size is 10! Account-based multiplier is therefore ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )

I read it as modified guild size or 10.

You make me wonder though...

MAX meaning The largest or maximum of the numbers included in the following bracketed set. This makes 10 a minimum for the mod size since a size lower than 10 is not the "MAX", then the +10 happens
Also on the wiki:

Guild level:26, Member Count: 6
Renown lost = (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier)
Renown lost = (2.197 * (max(6,10) + 10))
Renown lost = (2.197 * (10 + 10))
Renown lost = 43.94 [NOTE: rounding may apply]

Showing the min size in action on a size 6, decaying as 10 guild.

FWIW, I started a thread asking why this size minimum existed since I started running numbers myself on my less than 10 member guild and seeing similar "losing more than we think we should" posts in general renown discussions.
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=362736

[Zargarx]

Ok for that temporary adjustment to get past Mabar.

For a real solution my suggestion is as follows:

1. Use of an inefficiency coefficient in the formula.
A = active accounts (with a minimum of 1)
I = inefficiency coefficient. I picked 0.995 but can be fine tuned.
Modified Guild Size = 5 + A*(I^A)
This also reduces the penalty for guilds with less than 10 active members by treating them as if they have 10 members.

2. Active accounts = accounts that logged in in the previous week (instead of two weeks).
If possible, only includes accounts that earned renown.

edit: adjust math and provided the following example for a guild size of 65 (i.e. 452 * modified guild size)

Total renown loss:
Accounts /Currently /New
3 /9040 /3474
6 /9040 /4705
10 /9040 /6289
20 /13560 /9969
50 /27120 /18870
100 /49720 /28038

So per active account the renown loss would be
Accounts /Currently /New
3 /3013 /1158
6 /1507 /784
10 /904 /629
20 /678 /498
50 /542 /377
100 /497 /280

[theslimshady]

T
There are two forms of renown -- the obvious one that we are all talking about and the less obvious one that is found in each server population. On Orien there are two or three guilds -- maybe more -- that every player knows. It knows that the people are good people, competent players and helpful to the server community. The same is certainly true of every server even though the guild names will be different.

That type of renown is not gained by rushing to L100 and sitting on the benefits. It is earned respect gained by being there in the game day in and day out for the whole server community to see.

lol i am on that server are you talking about the 3 100 level guilds

[bazooka99]

Reducing the effect of guild size I could understand, but all that ignoring guild size does is encourage guilds to invite as many people as possible and then kick them when they run out of room (if they want the most renown, at least). And IIRC, renown decay already ignores inactive accounts, so how does the current system encourage guilds to kick inactive players?

I do appreciate what the devs are trying to do, and my advice to them is to try something less drastic.

My suggestion: Use renown tax instead of renown decay. Same as before 15.2, only the amount the guild would normally lose each day is instead the amount subtracted from their renown gains each day. So if my guild decay were 1000/day, it becomes a tax of 1000/day. We can go a week without playing and our renown stays the same. But our guild size and level still has a significant effect on our ability to gain renown.

[avery61]

I like the changes. Thumbs up from me!

[blkcat1028]

MAX meaning The largest or maximum of the numbers included in the following bracketed set. This makes 10 a minimum for the mod size since a size lower than 10 is not the "MAX", then the +10 happens
Also on the wiki:

Guild level:26, Member Count: 6
Renown lost = (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier)
Renown lost = (2.197 * (max(6,10) + 10))
Renown lost = (2.197 * (10 + 10))
Renown lost = 43.94 [NOTE: rounding may apply]

Showing the min size in action on a size 6, decaying as 10 guild.

So when they say that guild size has been removed from the equation, they're using a base modifier of 20 regardless?

[Therigar]

So when they say that guild size has been removed from the equation, they're using a base modifier of 20 regardless?

Yes, that appears to be the case.

[ladypummel]

love it thanks ddo relief from the drain of decay

[Therigar]

lol i am on that server are you talking about the 3 100 level guilds

Maybe....

But, even if I'm talking a different set of guilds the point is still the same -- the best known and respected guilds have earned that by how they treat other players on the server.

I fundamentally disagree with those who are locked in on this "recruit then kick" mind set. I think that the change is geared more to addressing concerns of guilds that felt forced to reduce size because inactive accounts created too much of a drain.

Totally removing guild renown decay would only make the problem of guilds recruiting and kicking a bigger problem. So, some form of decay is necessary.

My personal feeling is that the penalty for kicking accounts should be higher than the 25% loss. That seems a better solution.

Meanwhile, the penalty for voluntarily leaving should be reduced or eliminated.

This directly addresses the concerns of people worried that the "recruit and kick" mind set will bleed over to the changes that have been announced. It also lets people leave guilds without severe impact.

Obviously guilds need to be able to kick people who are really a problem. But, IMO it is a bit of the guild's own problem of poor recruitment and failure to really verify a player when this happens. Doesn't account for every jerk that ever lived or played DDO, but it does apply most of the time I think.

So, I'd be in favor of fixing the "recruit and kick" issue by upping the penalty to 75% or even higher of that character's renown contribution. OTOH, I'd support dropping the voluntary penalty to 0%.

IMO the opportunity to voluntarily leave on "bad" terms and penalize the guild 25% seems petty and a bit childish. But, that's just me. It might make a difference if you could take all the renown with you and auto apply it to a new guild. But, since we don't bank renown and can't earn it unless in a guild, it seems sort of silly to me to put a "mean" reaction choice out there.

Oh well, in any case I think the changes from Turbine are mostly positive here and that is the biggest thing to me. It looks like Turbine heard the community and made a change. I'm having a hard time finding reasons to fault them for that.

[blkcat1028]

Yes, that appears to be the case.

That means that regardless of account size a level 100 guild will suffer 67,500 renown loss daily.

In a 100 account guild each account would be responsible for 675 renown and each account in a 14 member guild would need 4821 or 3 impressive trophies and a tales of valor daily.

If that's the correct formula, it definitely favours bigger guilds more than I initially thought. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Thanks for all the info, very helpful stuff.

[KithWinter]

I would like to thank you for your attention to Guild Renown Decay issues, so far it seems a huge improvement over the last renown update.
Thanks

[Postumus]

Reducing the effect of guild size I could understand, but all that ignoring guild size does is encourage guilds to invite as many people as possible and then kick them when they run out of room (if they want the most renown, at least). And IIRC, renown decay already ignores inactive accounts, so how does the current system encourage guilds to kick inactive players?

This makes no sense to me. Where is the motivation to kick people out of the guild after it reaches 100? What is the benefit?

Wouldn't it be more likely that no one would get kicked and we would just have more large casual guilds?

[theslimshady]

Maybe....

But, even if I'm talking a different set of guilds the point is still the same -- the best known and respected guilds have earned that by how they treat other players on the server.

so if they have been rude to unknown players caught cheating renown rollback from exploiting always automatically on the attack when openly debated and kick small furry animals you would still feel they earned some kinda prestige based on guild level thank you for that humor +1 to you sir

[moops]

That means that regardless of account size a level 100 guild will suffer 67,500 renown loss daily.

In a 100 account guild each account would be responsible for 675 renown and each account in a 14 member guild would need 4821 or 3 impressive trophies and a tales of valor daily.

If that's the correct formula, it definitely favours bigger guilds more than I initially thought. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Thanks for all the info, very helpful stuff.

You are assuming that all accounts in a large guild will log on and play everyday, and that is simply not the case.

In my medium Guild with 16 active accounts, we never have all accounts log on in even one week, heck even a month. However I just got 7k in a little under 2 hours of relaxed play time thanx to our bonus.

When reknown first came out, people on our server predicted that guilds like mine, would merge with other guilds to gain lvls fast or whatever. Many of us small and medium guilds never did merge, and even before reknown bonus, many of us remained in the top 25. Meanwhile some of the guilds that merged, imploded or eventually plateaued.

I feel that the Guilds who were around at that time learned their lessons, either personally, or from watching others, and we won't see the mass recruitsmerges going on unless they are from newer people. We also know that ship buffs aren't needed for any content, and aren't going to sacrifice our nice lawn.

I know each server has a different enviornment--but on Sarlona, it is the small guilds that have been able to achieve high lvls really fast....If that is what is important to these small guild people, I don't think that this is going to change much, small guild who build to lvl fast, will still lvl fast.

Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding about active/inactive accounts--If you are booting accounts that haven't been active in a year, they haven't bee counting towards your decay anyway.

[cantcurestoopid]

I can't thank the devs enough for making such a change. I can't tell you the number of times I have had to tell guild members who while trying to understand the guild renown system that we refused to kick people simply because they had a life outside of DDO... Now the renown system is a bit more fair. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!


Serinah of Orien -- Officer in For Loot and Glory