Guild Renown Changes

[AmaWibble]

I'd like to add another vote in favour of this change.

We're a mid-sized guild (50+ accounts), and we hit a wall around level 80. We have a number of casual players, and we took a decision to live with not being able to make renown work for us rather than booting anyone. The fact that we couldn't make it beyond 80 was discouraging enough that many people stopped bothing with renown rewards, to the point that we were slowly back-sliding. This week, we've reversed the trend and we're slowly heading back to 80. With Mabar, I doubt we'll actually get back up there before the trial ends, but personally, I've felt energised to play again by the renown changes - feeling like we actually have a chance to get that top-tier ship makes it far more worthwhile. We have had a few people self-boot, or remove alt accounts to try to reduce the penalties.

To those who think the system needs to prevent bumhats from exploiting (e.g. invite a bunch of newbies, get to high level, boot the newbies), the problem is that making rules (that affect everyone) to control the actions of a few bad apples tends to screw everyone EXCEPT the bad apples (who simply find other ways to game the system at the expense of others). By the same logic, we should get rid of guild chests, or guild plat pooling (towards another airship), as what's to stop people inviting a bunch of newbs and getting them to contribute something as an 'entrance fee', then booting them? How many times have you heard of people joining a guild just to loot the guild chest? Ultimately, like any relationship, there has to be a level of trust inherant in a guild; if the trust is lacking, the guild will generally disintegrate anyway, or end up shunned and ignored by everyone else.

I have no problem at all with people forming Korthos army guilds to hit top guild level. If they can make it work, more power to them. I personally would never join such a guild, and we'll never take people on just to boost renown. We recruit based on whether we think someone would be a good fit for the guild, and we do reject those we think wouldn't be, or who don't make it through a trial period, and the proposed changes to renown won't change that at all. We try not to let renown decay be a factor in recruiting, but it'd be really nice to know that it definately wouldn't be (if this change becomes permanant).

Although there will be a few mass-invite guilds, I really don't see that the majority of guilds will do anything very different; many people seem to prefer being in a more tight-knit grouping of like-minded individuals, and you don't get that with a mega-guild. For those who enjoy being in a 1000-char guild, why should they be penalised? So long as I don't have to play like that (and nothing about these changes forces me to), why should I care? Guild reputation is based on the actions of members: if a particular guild is known to have a lot of people who don't listen or don't know what they're doing, they'll find people don't group with them. It's happened in the past, it'll happen again in the future, and nothing about guild renown changed that. Reputation takes a long time to build up, and almost no time to trash. The slight down-side is getting spammed with invites on non-guilded characters; maybe a way to disable guild invites (part of the lfm-invisibility setting, perhaps?) would solve this? Even if we just had to live with it, it's not a huge deal, and I know of plenty of people who formed 'free parking' or 1-man guilds to get around this, back in the day.

To those in smaller guilds, who don't see a lot of benefit in these changes, I'd like to see some more change that specifically targets you. However, the current trial doesn't seem designed to address your issues, but rather the issues of large guilds getting stuck. Take comfort in the fact that renown suckiness is finally being addressed, and instead of whining about how it's not fair that large guilds are getting all the lovin', continue to provide constructive suggestions for how things could be made better for you. For example, it seems like the renown multipliers for smaller guilds could be considerably boosted up to make the playing field a bit more level - this would (I assume) be a reasonably easy change to make, since it doesn't require changing the underlying mechanics, just some constants.

In summary, the renown changes being trialed have been super-positive for us, and I really hope to see them become permanant ASAP. Allowing massive guilds an easy ride to 100 as a side-effect really isn't a problem; they still have to trade off the intimacy of a smaller guild for the management headache of herding cats to get the benefit. Please continue to consider how to sort out other complaints, but let this be the first step to a renown system we can all enjoy.

[Hendrik]

Suggestion to DEVs;

Keep the test going or postpone it until Mabar ends.

The introduction of Mabar will skew any attempts to gather meaningful data on the renown changes - especially in the first few days.



Feedback;

In the first few days, initial feedback is positive. 80 Account and plateaued at 80 in previous system just by normal gameplay. Under same conditions we are slowly making advancements in test system.

[Dandonk]

Why does it matter to you how a guild other than your own performs?

Things do not exist in a vacuum.

The new decay mechanics can lead to mass invites/blind invites, and mass exodus to huge impersonal guilds. For example.

Changing the mechanics affects ALL guilds, whether directly or indirectly.

I agree that the old mechanics were harsh against casuals in large guilds. But the new ones do not help casuals in small guilds. And they make large guilds almost certain to reach level 100 in a reasonable timeframe, whereas small guilds will still struggle as before.

I think a great system would be an even playing field, where the choice of small or large guild is due to preference, not forced (or at least strongly encouraged) by in-game mechanics. And yes, where casuals are not frowned upon.

One of the ideas thrown around that I like is lowering the time you're counted as active drastically. This would really help casuals, I think.

[eris2323]

Things do not exist in a vacuum.

The new decay mechanics can lead to mass invites/blind invites, and mass exodus to huge impersonal guilds. For example.

Changing the mechanics affects ALL guilds, whether directly or indirectly.

I agree that the old mechanics were harsh against casuals in large guilds. But the new ones do not help casuals in small guilds. And they make large guilds almost certain to reach level 100 in a reasonable timeframe, whereas small guilds will still struggle as before.

I think a great system would be an even playing field, where the choice of small or large guild is due to preference, not forced (or at least strongly encouraged) by in-game mechanics. And yes, where casuals are not frowned upon.

One of the ideas thrown around that I like is lowering the time you're counted as active drastically. This would really help casuals, I think.

I think you are just afraid that deep down, people liked large guilds, and will start to abandon the small guilds when they realize they can get the buffs AND be in large guilds with their friends again... and not have to suffer in small 6-12 person guilds that never have anyone online, solely to get their buffs.... logging in to 20 friends online already playing is great. Logging in with no one online - not so much, I guess it'd be pug time?

Which might happen, and I'm all for it. Too many guilds out there.

[Hendrik]

I think you are just afraid that deep down, people liked large guilds, and will start to abandon the small guilds when they realize they can get the buffs AND be in large guilds with their friends again... and not have to suffer in small 6-12 person guilds that never have anyone online, solely to get their buffs.... logging in to 20 friends online already playing is great. Logging in with no one online - not so much, I guess it'd be pug time?

Which might happen, and I'm all for it. Too many guilds out there.

Ummm, this happened before the renown test this week - started when the first guild was higher then any others. Will continue to happen after any changes as well. Has nothing to do with renown but everything to do with human and gamer nature.

[Drakesan]

In response to the original post asking for feedback:

1. Thank you very, very much for your attention to this matter! Seriously. Our guild is very thankful it is getting worked on. +1

2. Our guild at the start of this was very slowly bleeding renown and was at the lower end of level 72. We are currently at the middle area of level 72. Moderate gains based on our member activity. We had an account leave the guild yesterday, and gains are still being seen. +1

3. IF this change was to be permanent, our guild will go back to moderate recruiting, based on requests to us. On a related note, we added 4 new people and their alts to our guild before this change, and none since. We are cautiously optimistic. +1

4. Last, and the biggest yay for us: We do not even have to contemplate removing inactives/casuals from our guild based on their activity. A member logs on, checks things out, then doesn’t log on for two weeks? No problem. A member doesn’t have to worry about resetting the renown timer when he/she logs on. More focus on play time, not worrying about negatively impacting the guild from simply logging onto the game. HUGE +1.

I’ve gone through several reiterations on this post trying to think of counter points to this change. I failed, and it may very well be that my desire and experiences skew my thoughts. I believe that other posts on here show the potential downside to this and should be considered (even though I disagree with them all).

If this change was to become permanent, it would have my wholehearted support.

[Arzoc]

Didn't even know decay existed, but after reading some of the posts I'm 100% for this. I have a guild of people I enjoy playing with but I'm restricted with alts (which I love playing, to the point of not capping 1 toon yet) because of guild size vs renown gain, which I didn't understand and found quite frustrating. I find it to be a winning argument that logging on to a reasonable group of people in a larger guild beats any "close knit" feelings of small guilds, be social...this is an MMO right?

[theslimshady]

The new decay mechanics can lead to mass invites/blind invites, and mass exodus to huge impersonal guilds. .

This is a theory it is as bad as saying the end of the world is coming in dec.

[MysticElaine]

Question to Dev:

Is the decay supposed to be the same no matter where u are at in guild lvl or is more as u progress in the level. I ask because I have been keeping track and the decay jumped by 500 renown from the previous day, which coincides with us getting a lot of renown the night before. I was the last to log and the first to log the next day after decay hit, so I know the reading is accurate and no one else added to renown after I left.

[Alcedes]

I am really happy to see Turbine addressing the Renown issues. I hope this first attempt was more of a temporary solution to alleviate some of the aggravation while they find a new solution though. I do not like the idea of massive guilds getting the go ahead nudge just because they have vastly superior numbers.

[Levonestral]

In summary, the renown changes being trialed have been super-positive for us, and I really hope to see them become permanant ASAP. Allowing massive guilds an easy ride to 100 as a side-effect really isn't a problem; they still have to trade off the intimacy of a smaller guild for the management headache of herding cats to get the benefit. Please continue to consider how to sort out other complaints, but let this be the first step to a renown system we can all enjoy.

Entirely well said and I fully agree with everything.

The Madborn, like Archangles, made a very similar choice. We decided very early on we would not remove any member simply because they are casual. Heck, we have players that only log in once or twice a year, many military members who play months at a time, then disappear for a year. They're all welcome and continue to remain in guild because we actually care about them as people, not just renown machines.

Like AA, we also got "stuck", but sadly just shy of 85. It's been a tough one to swallow.

Before this change, due to many members currently being on breaks, we were unable to break even during the weekdays and would only be able to generate enough renown to cover the losses during the weekends; leaving us with no gain from week to week and some weeks falling further behind.

This change has given us a chance to start gaining again. We can now break even during the week and this coming weekend will push us forward again.

Will we change how we recruit? Nope, we intend to stay exactly the way we are now. The renown system didn't change it before, it's not going to change it now.

I fully understand those that are concerned about their small guilds (less than 10), but keep in mind, this was just "stage 1" of Turbines overall plan to make changes. They only did it now because it was a "quick and easy" way to gain some immediate feedback on the larger guilds. I have no doubt your calls will be listened to, it will just require them to make actual changes in the code in order to support.

People need to be allowed to decide for themselves what they want their own guild to become. Guilds of all makes, mixes, styles and size should all have the same chance at reaching 100 as anyone else. Turbine should not place any kind of limitation on their ability to reach to 100.

Another suggestion for decay:

Keep a daily decay like it is now (not based on members), BUT only have it kick in when nobody has logged in at all for the previous day. That way "dead" guilds will decay slowly and should their players return, they'll have to make up for those losses then. Any amount of activity (maybe through looting at least some kind of renown for the day) should keep the decay from hitting the guild for that day.

[theslimshady]

i just lost 138641 renown at about 10;30 did any others have this happen this was my daily decay prior to this change

[Alcedes]

i just lost 138641 renown at about 10;30 did any others have this happen this was my daily decay prior to this change

my guild just lost about 20k it looks like.

[DocBenway]

Have read one and heard one report in party chat over voice of guild being hit at old decay today. Maybe the Mabar Kobold switch is connected to the Decay test switch.

My guild's decay remained the same as we have a size below hard coded minimum 10.

[theslimshady]

yes it seems to have rollbacked to its ole bleed out state

is it wrong that this upsets me more then mabar crashing

[Tshober]

This change hurts small guilds. Why not just cut the decay rate in half so that small guilds aren't disadvantaged?

Our small guild with only 6 people @ level 69 needs 1.5k per person per day to break even. This is hard to do when we are getting penalized after reaching a new level. We will just drop down and go back up again and be caught in a cycle of poor renown drops. It is hard to get the renown to offset decay after leveling which only ensure we will drop down to the next level.

This is a really bad change. The math makes no sense on a per member basis.

Hurts?

How exactly did this change hurt your guild?

Your guild will advance at least as fast and as far under the new system as it did under the old decay system. That is true of every single guild in DDO. No guild has been "hurt" or even inconvenienced in any way by this change, versus the old decay system. It may be true that this change did not help your guild as much as it helped some other guilds, but to say that your guild (or any guild for that matter) was hurt by this change is not being honest about it.

[OpallNotten]

Hurts?

How exactly did this change hurt your guild?

Your guild will advance at least as fast and as far under the new system as it did under the old decay system. That is true of every single guild in DDO. No guild has been "hurt" or even inconvenienced in any way by this change, versus the old decay system. It may be true that this change did not help your guild as much as it helped some other guilds, but to say that your guild (or any guild for that matter) was hurt by this change is not being honest about it.

You have no right speaking for every single Guild in DDO.

This change has/will hurt my Guild if it stays live.

I don't care about the buffs and the shrines.

I have always seen this as a competition. It was introduced as one. The decay serves a purpose....to keep large guilds in check. To this day, there is still a LeaderBoard.

So If this stays live, Turbine has just given Large Guilds an unfair advantage.

~Opall~

[Drakesan]

You have no right speaking for every single Guild in DDO.

This change has/will hurt my Guild if it stays live.

I don't care about the buffs and the shrines.

I have always seen this as a competition. It was introduced as one. The decay serves a purpose....to keep large guilds in check. To this day, there is still a LeaderBoard.

So If this stays live, Turbine has just given Large Guilds an unfair advantage.

~Opall~

"to keep large guilds in check" Are you implying that there needs to be a mechanic to hamper a large guild's working towards a goal? Why? I don't understand why anyone would care what a different guild does or does not do in relation to your guild? What any other guild does or doesn't do has zero impact on you and your guild. Are you going to stop working towards level 100 if another guild gets there first?

I agree that levelling the "playing field" as far as a race towards guild level 100 is concerned would be fair, but neither I nor my guild was ever in that race. Take that number and throw it away as far as MY guild is concerned, we couldn't care less about it.

And I take from the gist of your post that as long as the advantage is in your favor, you are perfectly fine with it. I could be wrong, but that is my take on it.

[Dirac]

You have no right speaking for every single Guild in DDO.

This change has/will hurt my Guild if it stays live.

I don't care about the buffs and the shrines.

I have always seen this as a competition. It was introduced as one. The decay serves a purpose....to keep large guilds in check. To this day, there is still a LeaderBoard.

So If this stays live, Turbine has just given Large Guilds an unfair advantage.

~Opall~

The majority of guilds are not competing with you. The old mechanic was broken and needed to be changed, because active guilds were not advancing at all. I sympathize that it affects how you are looking at the game. But most don't want to play your version of guild wars, they want their guild to advance in levels as long as they are active.

[DocBenway]

And I take from the gist of your post that as long as the advantage is in your favor, you are perfectly fine with it. I could be wrong, but that is my take on it.

Opal's guild, at size, did not benefit either way. Decay for her was unchanged being below 10, BUT she greatly values the competitive aspect of the guild leaderboard, and the change did affect some guilds "handicap" to use a golf term. The playing field is not level if it is to be considered competitive is what I think the issue is.