Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

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?

We also have casual people that don't play often in our small guild. They need to scrap this horrible change and put something in place that is fair to guilds of all sizes rather than help large guilds and penalize small guilds. Not to mention if they take a break for a year they are inactive for 12 months and not increasing guild size for around 10 1/2 of those months - the exact same scenario small guilds face. There is no need to make small guilds earn 1500 renown per day per account to cover decay while a 1000 member guild only needs to get 10 renown per day per account. Large and small guilds both have casual and inactive members.

[Tshober]

They have absolutely done harm and it needs to be scrapped. We got no reduction to decay and instead recieved more of a penalty each time we advance 1 level.

Oh well, I tried to be reasonable. Let's hear your suggestion for something that will be fair and please everyone.

[Chaos000]

We also have casual people that don't play often in our small guild. They need to scrap this horrible change and put something in place that is fair to guilds of all sizes rather than help large guilds and penalize small guilds.

So you agree that casual and non-active players should not count when assessing guild decay. This "horrible change" does that by taking number of accounts out of the equation because it is an arbitrary number.

I would be ok with guilds of varying sizes either getting a increased bonus to their renown gained or a reduction (based on size) on guild decay. Even small guilds should be able to get at least "some" advancement. This of course is assuming there are examples of small guilds unable to reach the next level since the change.

[slarden]

Oh well, I tried to be reasonable. Let's hear your suggestion for something that will be fair and please everyone.

Fair? Leaving the new system is anything but fair. Requiring small guild members to earn 1500 renown per day to make up for decay while large 1000 member guilds only need 10 renown to cover decay is not any fair any way it is measured.

There are several possible solutions:

1) Reduce the amount of decay by 50% across the board to start and see how that works. I noticed many casual guilds leveling during the build your guild event that proves even a small change will make a difference. This encourages playing the game but doesn't require active players to earn so much renown to make up for inactive players.
2) The curve is very steep as guilds level up with decay getting higher at each level. Flatten the curve so reaching high levels is more reasonable for guilds with casual players. If they want to make the curve steeper, do it at level 85 so that 85 to 100 is about bragging rights and not better buffs
3) Just get rid of decay altogether and let guilds get to 100 like people level to 25 with their characters.

[Dhalgren]

They have absolutely done harm and it needs to be scrapped. We got no reduction to decay and instead recieved more of a penalty each time we advance 1 level.

Did they change the level multiplier? If so I'd like to take a look at how the new system affected our guild.

[slarden]

So you agree that casual and non-active players should not count when assessing guild decay. This "horrible change" does that by taking number of accounts out of the equation because it is an arbitrary number.

I would be ok with guilds of varying sizes either getting a increased bonus to their renown gained or a reduction (based on size) on guild decay. Even small guilds should be able to get at least "some" advancement. This of course is assuming there are examples of small guilds unable to reach the next level since the change.

I think decay needs to be addressed, but the new proposed changes miss the new mark so much it needs to be scrapped. The new system can't require small guilds to gain 150 times more renown as large guilds to make up for daily decay. Using the old system and reducing decay by 50% would be a much better option or removing decay completely.

[SiliconScout]

I am in a small guild (7 acccounts). We are somewhat casual. two players play daily and the rest play a couple 3 times a week.

With the old system (and new as it makes no change for us) we imagined we would top out in the low to mid 80's. This is good enough to get us all the ships, etc we are interested in.

So I don't see how it's unfair excepting if you want to say that all the other guilds can get to 100 if they have 20 or so members.

Yeah ... probably ... what does that really give them though. E-Peen and that is about it really.

If they are worried about the small guild then bump it's bonus up say 10% maybe 15% and it should be just fine.

I guess I don't get it because I am grounded enough that I don't need any e-peen showing so it doesn't bother me at all.

[SiliconScout]

We also have casual people that don't play often in our small guild. They need to scrap this horrible change and put something in place that is fair to guilds of all sizes rather than help large guilds and penalize small guilds. Not to mention if they take a break for a year they are inactive for 12 months and not increasing guild size for around 10 1/2 of those months - the exact same scenario small guilds face. There is no need to make small guilds earn 1500 renown per day per account to cover decay while a 1000 member guild only needs to get 10 renown per day per account. Large and small guilds both have casual and inactive members.

Actually assuming the guilds are of same level it the 10 man guild needed 1500 a day per account then the 1000 man guild would need 15 not 10.

It's linear in that respect they both earn the exact same amount of decay.

[Tshober]

Actually assuming the guilds are of same level it the 10 man guild needed 1500 a day per account then the 1000 man guild would need 15 not 10.

It's linear in that respect they both earn the exact same amount of decay.

There are no 1000 account guilds. That is a myth. There is a cap on guild size at 1000 characters. Very few accounts have only 1 character. The larger guilds have several hundred accounts. There might be a very few that have 500+ accounts but most large guilds will have less than 2 or 3 hundred accounts. They will have even fewer active accounts because the 1000 character cap includes all inactives.

[slarden]

Actually assuming the guilds are of same level it the 10 man guild needed 1500 a day per account then the 1000 man guild would need 15 not 10.

It's linear in that respect they both earn the exact same amount of decay.

6 person guild and I rounded down - so more than 1500 is actually required. As for your other example, getting to 85 is a good goal to get a bigger ship and more amenities.

For our 6 person guild under the new proposed system at level 84 we will need to earn 4,742 renown per day per account to cover renown loss. A 1000 member guild will only need to earn 28.45 renown per day per account to cover decay loss at level 84. Even with the 300% tiny guild bonus that means we need over 300 heroic deeds per account per day just to cover decay while a larger guild needs less than 1. There is no way that can be called fair. It's just simple math.

The new system was a nice idea and a nice try, but they need to come up with something that is fair to all guilds. I get that large guilds that aren't leveling want to move up, but it's just not right to require small guilds to do so much more than large guilds.

[Chaos000]

I think decay needs to be addressed, but the new proposed changes miss the new mark so much it needs to be scrapped. The new system can't require small guilds to gain 150 times more renown as large guilds to make up for daily decay. Using the old system and reducing decay by 50% would be a much better option or removing decay completely.

When you say 150 times more renown is just an arbitrary number if you're comparing renown required per account.

A large guild does have the "potential" for having an easier time IF they have more active guild members (in comparison to an average smaller guild) in-game every single day. In practice however, in a large guild, inactive accounts are MORE likely to outnumber the active accounts than it would be for a small guild.

Therefore I posit that active members in a large guild picking up the slack for all the inactive members will significantly reduce the "150 times" required of a smaller guild.

[Chaos000]

For our 6 person guild under the new proposed system at level 84 we will need to earn 4,742 renown per day per account to cover renown loss. A 1000 member guild will only need to earn 28.45 renown per day per account to cover decay loss at level 84. Even with the 300% tiny guild bonus that means we need over 300 heroic deeds per account per day just to cover decay while a larger guild needs less than 1. There is no way that can be called fair. It's just simple math.

Because of the statistical improbability that 1000 member guild (allowing no more than 1 character per account) will all be in game every single day on every single account for a week this simple math is flawed and not realistic.

[slarden]

When you say 150 times more renown is just an arbitrary number if you're comparing renown required per account.

A large guild does have the "potential" for having an easier time IF they have more active guild members (in comparison to an average smaller guild) in-game every single day. In practice however, in a large guild, inactive accounts are MORE likely to outnumber the active accounts than it would be for a small guild.

Therefore I posit that active members in a large guild picking up the slack for all the inactive members will significantly reduce the "150 times" required of a smaller guild.

I showed you the math it's not abritrary. The math will change based on actual # of accounts, but even @ 100 or 200 accounts the math still works. Arbitrary is the system - a system that benefits only very large guilds.

The new system is not fair and needs to be scrapped. Using the old system and reducing renown decay across the board would make much more sense or just getting rid of decay altogether.

[slarden]

Because of the statistical improbability that 1000 member guild (allowing no more than 1 character per account) will all be in game every single day on every single account for a week this simple math is flawed and not realistic.

Not relevant. The math works the same with 200 person guild and there are guilds out there with 1000 characters so they are very likely to have 200+ active accounts.

A 2 person guild @ 84 needs to earn 14,223 renown per day per account to cover decay.

A 200 person guild @ 84 needs to earn 142 renown per day per account to cover decay

The system is just as unfair if you compare a 2 person guild to a 200 person guild.

[Viisari]

Cool, so in a month or two we're going to have tons of level 100 guilds around and being in one won't really mean anything.

Why not just remove the guild levels if we're going to make them have no meaning at all? At least nobody can whine then...

[Chaos000]

I showed you the math it's not abritrary. The math will change based on actual # of accounts, but even @ 100 or 200 accounts the math still works. Arbitrary is the system - a system that benefits only very large guilds.

Actual # of accounts are irrelevant. If the small guild and large guild have roughly the same number of "active" accounts. The actual amount of renown that is needed to maintain the level is exactly the same. In fact. In this scenario if you take the bonuses into account the small guild ends up not having to work as hard.

[Tshober]

Cool, so in a month or two we're going to have tons of level 100 guilds around and being in one won't really mean anything.

Why not just remove the guild levels if we're going to make them have no meaning at all? At least nobody can whine then...

Ha, you seriously underestimate the D&D player's capacity to whine. I would vastly prefer no levels to the old decay system we had. I am for anything that makes your guild choice be about how you want to play and who you want to play with, rather than about guild levels.

[slarden]

Actual # of accounts are irrelevant. If the small guild and large guild have roughly the same number of "active" accounts. The actual amount of renown that is needed to maintain the level is exactly the same. In fact. In this scenario if you take the bonuses into account the small guild ends up not having to work as hard.

You are talking in circles. Inactive accounts are excluded from the guild account count to begin with.

There is no way a guild of 200 accounts (which by the way mean the account has been logged into the last month) has the same # of active accounts as the guild with 2 accounts. I am sorry this is the worst argument yet.

The new system needs to go.

[Enoach]

I think decay needs to be addressed, but the new proposed changes miss the new mark so much it needs to be scrapped. The new system can't require small guilds to gain 150 times more renown as large guilds to make up for daily decay. Using the old system and reducing decay by 50% would be a much better option or removing decay completely.

While I realize that your 150x as a Large guild comment is more an emotional than factual I thought I would take a moment to point out it is not as big a gap as that, but it is not a small gap either.

I'll use my Level 71 123 Active Accounts

Under the Old System

123 Active Account decay = 83,304 or 678 per Active Account

6 Active Account decay = 10,022 or 1,671 per Account <- Add in that Guild Renown is earned at 300% so now becomes 557

10 Active Account decay = 12,527 or 1,253 per Account <- Add in that Guild Renown is earned at 240% so now becomes 522

Under the Temporary change
123 Active Account decay = 12,527 or 102 per Active Account

6 Active Account decay = 12,527 or 4,176 per Account <- Add in that Guild Renown is earned at 300% so now becomes 695
======================================
Basically any guild that was under the 10 Active Member mark was hit with more in the case above the 6 member guild would now be required to pull in approx. 140 more renown a day to stay even. While the 123 Active Account Guild now has a reduced amount per account by approx 575 to stay even.

If you bring this out to level 100 the 6 active member Guild still only needs to earn 6x the amount as a 123 active account.

It could be argued that more ants build a nest faster...
======================================

However, what is almost always not discussed is "How Active are members". While my Guild does have 123 Active Accounts, not all 123 accounts are active every day, some are weekend warriors, others have one or two nights/days they can play all depending on the Shift they have been assigned. Some are military and are deployed for a few weeks at a time to even a month or more.

Larger guilds generally have a larger ratio of these types of players then the smaller ones.

========================================

I do applaud Turbine for actually taking what I see as a FIRST step towards balancing the renown system. This however, should not be their last step. In the short term this will allow some of the static level guilds to possibly get out of the rut of gaining and losing a level.

But I hardly see the <10 Active member guilds as being hurt significantly as most of these guilds are powered by Very Active members and the extra 140 renown per day per person is not as big a deal as some make it out to be.

[Chaos000]

There is no way a guild of 200 accounts (which by the way mean the account has been logged into the last month) has the same # of active accounts as the guild with 2 accounts. I am sorry this is the worst argument yet.

Your argument is under the assumption that a guild of 200 accounts will all log in as frequently on a per day basis as the guild with 2 accounts. Assuming the members of the 2 account guild log in every single day and each member of the guild of 200 accounts log in once a month how much is the disparity between the two after you assign the bonuses a small guild receives?