Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

Now, maybe another reason to kick a guild member is to make room for more active players. I don't think that decision would have to made until a guild hit 1000 accounts (or is it members?). .

It's 1000 members. And my guild hits that limit all the time. We almost always have a waiting list of people who want to join us. We really have no choice, we have to kick players who have been inactive for quite awhile to make room for players who want to join right now.

Even so, I am not opposed to your suggestion of a 100% renown penalty for kicking members, as long as there is a reasonable time limit after which the penalty goes away. If a player has not logged in at all for more than say 3 months, then the guild should not be penalized for kicking them to make room for a currently active player. The fears of a legion "Krothos Army" guilds destroying all that is good and wholesome about DDO are way overblown, but your suggestion of a 100% kick penalty would help reduce the hysteria some. There is no way you can argue that someone who has not logged in for more than 3 months was somehow being abused because the guild kicked him to make room for a currently active player. You should be able to do that penalty-free.

[theslimshady]

yes, but the whole speculation about mass booting, after renown farming, is nothing more then another fear campaign. you can already do it under the current system. If you gain 60k and i boot you, you take less then 20 k with you. i keep 40 and have a +1 to modified account size for 14 days. So the only thing different is the +1 to modified account size for 14 days. I would still keep 75 percent of all renown gained.

[Chaos000]

What if players had the option to pull 0-100% of their renown with them after being booted from the guild? would that be a viable alternative? And whatever guild they joined next would get 25% of their total renown gained.

[bazooka99]

To everyone who is a member of a small-medium guild, and who thinks that they'll lose members to giant, Korthos army guilds with this change: if the change became permanant, would you, personally, move? Would you leave the camaraderie of your small group to join a guild where you'll never know everyone? Just for faster access to buffs?

Extend this thought experiment a little further: assume for a moment you weren't a member of a guild; assume also that you'd played DDO for long enough to get a feel for the game and see some different content, plus meet a few people and start to recognise a few names. If you were in the market for a guild, would you want to join a group of like-minded people, or would you just want to gain access to guild buffs, without wanting any social stuff?

In both cases above, I would join the guild that suited my play style and personality. The size of the guild would matter not one iota - I'd rather join an under-equipped guild that suited me and help build it up than a level 100 guild that didn't match my needs. Based on what a lot of people have said, I suspect that many, if not most people here would behave in a similar manner. For those who just want guild buffs, or who actually like being in a mega-guild, or who don't really care and are happy to hop on the first band-wagon that comes along, well, you're probably not people I'd want to be in a guild with (and that's a good thing), as we don't want the same things from our guilds. Vive la différence!

Please don't hammer this change just because it doesn't improve your personal situation. Aside from the leaderboard bunnies (and you appear to be in a minority of 1 so far), nobody is actually disadvantaged by the (proposed) change, and given that nobody else seems to be competing, I'm not convinced that the leaderboard bunnies are actually disadvantaged anyway. Encourage Turbine to make other changes that sort out your particular issues without disadvantaging others, and bear in mind that the simple suggestions are more likely to be implemented than the complex ones. Someone else getting a leg-up does not equate to you getting pushed down. I'm fairly sure that nobody here is arguing that the current change is everything that's needed, or that there doesn't need to be some additional balancing, but I am seeing a whole load of small-guild folks who aren't hugely affected by this arguing that the change that doesn't affect them isn't fair because it only helps someone else.

Yes, you are correct that nobody is disadvantaged by this change, and I believe you are correct that most of us would stick with our small/medium guilds despite the new advantages of large guilds. But try to think about this from the perspective of a medium sized guild that spends years leveling, only to find that all they had earned during those years can now be achieved by a Korthos army guild in a matter of weeks/months, or a matter of minutes from a simple invite from one.

Imagine if Turbine started selling completionist tomes in the DDO store. Sure, no one would be disadvantaged by the change, and most people would find it unfulfilling to simply buy a completionist tome (and so wouldn't buy one). But wouldn't it sort of destroy your sense of achievement if all those years of earning a completionist build could now be done by a player with a few hundred (or thousand?) extra turbine points to spare?

[Rapthorn]

True. I can only use the information I have a available which is why I restricted my data set to this thread. How representative it is of guilds at large I have no idea.

Yet I do not think it is a stretch that if 1% of the posters have brought this up as an issue, then it probably isn't an issue for most guilds.

I find it really difficult to believe that all of these problems people have with decay exist for the buffs alone... The same buffs that I read threads stating that they are overpowered. The same buffs that other threads consider worthless and a waste of gaming time.

That really only leaves one other reason to complain about guild renown decay and that is that it is a competition. No one wants to come out and flatly state that is what it's about because then they get flamed for taking a "game" too seriously.

There is another thread going on right now about the dislike of the test system. In it I have read the opinions of two guilds that were "stuck" at level 80-84... They are obviously happy about the test system because now they can advance the last few legs to get to 100. What does 100 get them that 80-84 did not? And why should Turbine pander to people like this when the VAST majority are below level 80?

It took my small guild 1 1/2 YEARS to get to 72. Doing the rough math of how long it will take to get to 80-84, based on 35000 renown a day (which is our average over the 1 1/2 years) it will take us 280 days just to get to the point where these particular large guilds are complaining. Do you think this is fair? Some of these guilds say they are facing decay roughly around the 150k mark and yet they are maintaining their guild level with that decay. How can I compete against a guild that can earn 150k renown a day?

The system was already unfair against the smaller guilds because of how long it would take them to reach the higher levels compared to the large guilds and this "test" system makes it even worse by miles.

[Dirac]

Yes, you are correct that nobody is disadvantaged by this change, and I believe you are correct that most of us would stick with our small/medium guilds despite the new advantages of large guilds. But try to think about this from the perspective of a medium sized guild that spends years leveling, only to find that all they had earned during those years can now be achieved by a Korthos army guild in a matter of weeks/months, or a matter of minutes from a simple invite from one.

Just to be clear. What you want is complete removal of guild decay right? Because I think many people in favor of the change would prefer that as well. I think many, including me, were so happy that they made a change at all that we didn't appreciate how this didn't solve the problem for many guilds. That should still be a concern. As long as you are not advocating the old system.

[Chaos000]

Imagine if Turbine started selling completionist tomes in the DDO store. Sure, no one would be disadvantaged by the change, and most people would find it unfulfilling to simply buy a completionist tome (and so wouldn't buy one). But wouldn't it sort of destroy your sense of achievement if all those years of earning a completionist build could now be done by a player with a few hundred (or thousand?) extra turbine points to spare?

not to derail the thread but that would be awesome. Turbine would probably make more money by selling them separately... "tome of class completion (monk)" "tome of class completion (bard)"... etc. There are just some classes that I don't find very desirable to level up as a TR. Cost vs Benefit.

[Tshober]

That is not true - lowered guild renown starts with 1 level increase and by the time you increase 3 levels you get nothing.

Again, it is hard for those of us who have been stuck at the same level (or going backwards) for many months to sympathize with a guild that has already gained a level that day being unable to gain 2 more levels in that same day. I am a slobbering fool at tear-jerker movies, but I just can't work up anything over your complaint.

Any guild with more than 10 players, got a renown decay reduction. Any guild that actually has to worry about gaining more than 1 level per day (much less 3 per day) is not really in need of any help.

[Dirac]

It took my small guild 1 1/2 YEARS to get to 72. Doing the rough math of how long it will take to get to 80-84, based on 35000 renown a day (which is our average over the 1 1/2 years) it will take us 280 days just to get to the point where these particular large guilds are complaining. Do you think this is fair? Some of these guilds say they are facing decay roughly around the 150k mark and yet they are maintaining their guild level with that decay. How can I compete against a guild that can earn 150k renown a day?

The system was already unfair against the smaller guilds because of how long it would take them to reach the higher levels compared to the large guilds and this "test" system makes it even worse by miles.

I cannot get my head around this. If a guild earns 150k a day, you are saying it is not fair for them to keep it. If a guild earns a lot more renown than your guild earns, they don't deserve it. And the reason they don't deserve it is because it is more than your guild earned. You choose a small guild that can't earn enough renown to compete against a large guild. However, you want to compete against them anyway, therefore, Turbine must nerf them so that you win, even if they don't want to compete against you. Did I get your argument right? How is that not crazy? And you are claiming unfairness?

I get the argument that all decay should be eliminated because the "test" system doesn't help stuck smaller guilds. Since it helps the larger ones, a greater disparity can make the lives of smaller casual guilds worse. But this idea that large guilds must be punished with decay because there are small guilds who want to beat them, but can't without decay, is nuts.

[Chaos000]

The system was already unfair against the smaller guilds because of how long it would take them to reach the higher levels compared to the large guilds and this "test" system makes it even worse by miles.

If we're talking "fair" the decay should be based on the percentage of *active* players...

Active would be determined by how much renown each player pulls in each day to determine if they are active that day or not.

This change would punish active players in large and small guilds equally (but not equally because smaller guilds would have a higher % of active players). Current system penalizes active players that choose to tolerate casual players in their guild.

How about a compromise? Decay being assessed by the level of guild takes casual players out of the equation as it should. Reduce that decay by 75% for small guilds and lock out guild size if it expands from small to any of the larger sizes.

[bazooka99]

Just to be clear. What you want is complete removal of guild decay right? Because I think many people in favor of the change would prefer that as well. I think many, including me, were so happy that they made a change at all that we didn't appreciate how this didn't solve the problem for many guilds. That should still be a concern. As long as you are not advocating the old system.

I certainly like the idea of removing guild renown (if that's how this all played out, I'd be happy). There's just one concern for me, and that's that there will be a bunch of capped out guilds, all level 100, who no longer have any reason for earning renown. Maybe expanding the level cap (w/o additional benefits, please) and/or offering a one-time reward for every million earned renown (plat? xp? turbine points?) would solve the issue.

Once this is done, we can think about changing the guild size modifiers so that guilds of 100 aren't twice as effective as guilds of 50. Make it so that guilds gain a slight advantage from adding members (just as PUGs gain a slight advantage from adding members on norm/hard difficulties), but don't gain a huge advantage over smaller guilds.

[Dirac]

I certainly like the idea of removing guild renown (if that's how this all played out, I'd be happy). There's just one concern for me, and that's that there will be a bunch of capped out guilds, all level 100, who no longer have any reason for earning renown. Maybe expanding the level cap (w/o additional benefits, please) and/or offering a one-time reward for every million earned renown (plat? xp? turbine points?) would solve the issue.

Fair enough. and I agree they should raise the cap. I think there are lots of possibilities for marginal improvements for guild levels 101-200. My suggestion was simply to repeat all the 1-100 amenities except have buffs last for 2 hours. I think adding an extra 1% xp bonus every 20 levels is not game breaking. How about an extra 1% movement buff every 20 levels? With a little brainstorming, we could come up with a bunch of stuff.

[Rapthorn]

I cannot get my head around this. If a guild earns 150k a day, you are saying it is not fair for them to keep it. If a guild earns a lot more renown than your guild earns, they don't deserve it. And the reason they don't deserve it is because it is more than your guild earned. You choose a small guild that can't earn enough renown to compete against a large guild. However, you want to compete against them anyway, therefore, Turbine must nerf them so that you win, even if they don't want to compete against you. Did I get your argument right? How is that not crazy? And you are claiming unfairness?

I get the argument that all decay should be eliminated because the "test" system doesn't help stuck smaller guilds. Since it helps the larger ones, a greater disparity can make the lives of smaller casual guilds worse. But this idea that large guilds must be punished with decay because there are small guilds who want to beat them, but can't without decay, is nuts.

I love getting words put in my mouth... not sure how you came to your conclusions but my point was that the system was already unfair for the small guilds and under the "test" system is even worse.

I agree that something needed to be done about the casual gamer issue and renown decay but making a skewed system for large guilds even more skewed is for lack of a better term, flawed.

I am hoping that Turbine can come up with a formula that is fair for every single player involved.

[Chaos000]

Fair enough. and I agree they should raise the cap. I think there are lots of possibilities for marginal improvements for guild levels 101-200. My suggestion was simply to repeat all the 1-100 amenities except have buffs last for 2 hours. I think adding an extra 1% xp bonus every 20 levels is not game breaking. How about an extra 1% movement buff every 20 levels? With a little brainstorming, we could come up with a bunch of stuff.

House P buffs should last for 2 hours...

I think the problem with guild levels 101-200 is because assuming decay will continue to be determined by guild level, unless decay caps out at lvl 100, there's going to be a threshold a guild will hit that they will not be able to exceed. Non-progression despite effort... unless it's the max variable you can hit is not fun. I think the idea of TRing a guild ship is also an option (ya know, increase all the buffs by an hour but doubling the decay and the amount of renown required... ick) but that doesn't sound like fun to me!

[Rapthorn]

If we're talking "fair" the decay should be based on the percentage of *active* players...

Active would be determined by how much renown each player pulls in each day to determine if they are active that day or not.

This change would punish active players in large and small guilds equally (but not equally because smaller guilds would have a higher % of active players). Current system penalizes active players that choose to tolerate casual players in their guild.

How about a compromise? Decay being assessed by the level of guild takes casual players out of the equation as it should. Reduce that decay by 75% for small guilds and lock out guild size if it expands from small to any of the larger sizes.

Now this is finally something that I can start to agree on. Currently sounds fair to me, although I will leave it open in case there is something exploitable I haven't thought of.

[Dirac]

I love getting words put in my mouth... not sure how you came to your conclusions but my point was that the system was already unfair for the small guilds and under the "test" system is even worse.

I agree that something needed to be done about the casual gamer issue and renown decay but making a skewed system for large guilds even more skewed is for lack of a better term, flawed.

I am hoping that Turbine can come up with a formula that is fair for every single player involved.

Sorry about that then. I agree that renown should be eliminated so everyone can advance. It is important to emphasize that letting guilds keep the renown they earned is not unfair.

[Dirac]

I think the idea of TRing a guild ship is also an option (ya know, increase all the buffs by an hour but doubling the decay and the amount of renown required... ick) but that doesn't sound like fun to me!

that might be a real interesting idea to consider...

[Tshober]

I am hoping that Turbine can come up with a formula that is fair for every single player involved.

Call me a pessimist, but I don't see that happening unless they eliminate guild levels entirely. That would annoy many players and hurt DDO's revenue from all those astral diamonds and renown pots, but it would be fair to everyone. I am convinced that no plan will make everyone happy. Some will always feel cheated.

[Tshober]

You keep mentioning 3 levels, but I am talking about a small guild getting stuck at the same level due to the combo of renown decay and the nerfed renown rewards you get as soon as you gain 1 level. This makes it hard to keep that level so you go back a level, then eventually up a level and the cycle repeats.

The complaint is simple math. A large guild of 1000 only needs to earn 10 renown per account to avoid going backwards. A small guild needs to earn 1500 renown per account. If you don't see the difference between 10 renown per account vs 1500 account being significant, there is nothing anyone can do to explain it to you

It takes way more than a day to earn a level for our guild. We work really hard at it, but with the old system we had the same decay vs. earning issue as larger guilds. Under the new system it is much easier for large guilds and the additional penalty applied when obtaining a new level adds an additional burden to small guilds. There is nothing right about this. I am sorry to say your argument is without any merit at all. It ignores math, it ignores common sense and it ignores logic.

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic toward the tiny guilds that got no help from the change. No guild should be stuck unable to advance. I have strongly advocated for the total removal of renown decay in these forums for many months. I still think that would be the best solution. But I am absolutely overjoyed that the devs are actually moving in the right direction by greatly reducing renown decay after so long.

This change removed the barriers to advancemment for many guilds and also significantly reduced the incentives to shun casual/social players. Those things are overwhelmingly positive. I do not want to see the devs undo all that good because the tiny guilds that did not get any help from it complain about it "hurting" small guilds. It did not hurt small guilds. It just failed to help them like it did the larger guilds. If, instead of saying this change was hurting small guilds, you had advocated going even further and eliminating renown decay entirely so that even the tiny guilds get a big break, then I would not be arguing with you. I would be saying YES, THIS PLEASE!

So my appeal to you is don't portray the change as having done harm, because it actually did a ton of good. Instead say that it did not go far enough. If you go that way, many of us will stop arguing with you and support you instead.

[Chaos000]

The complaint is simple math. A large guild of 1000 only needs to earn 10 renown per account to avoid going backwards. A small guild needs to earn 1500 renown per account. If you don't see the difference between 10 renown per account vs 1500 account being significant, there is nothing anyone can do to explain it to you

We are not comparing "per account" in this simple math because you have to account for the the number of casual accounts in a large guild of 1000. Honestly, what is the statistical probability that each account in this mythical large guild of 1000 is active every day? probably more likely all the members of the small guild are active.

So say there is half the number of of active members in this large guild of 1000 compared to the small guild. And just to be fair say 500 of the other members log in maybe once every 2 weeks. The rest taking a break for a year. how much renown do the active members in this large guild have to pull in on a daily basis and is this WAY smaller than the small guild?