Guild Renown Changes

[McFlay]

And there is a very easy solution: increase the small guild bonus multiplier.

Or for those of us who don't think every guild should hit 100 and sit there forever, that would have been a very easy way to compound the problem, not a solution.

[Tshober]

But guild renown isn't about power or money. It's about fame (heellooo, it's even called renown) which means that you totally can divide it by the number of players because it's far more abstract than any of the things you brought up and thus isn't restricted by the logic you're applying to those.

It may represent fame and fame may be abstract, but that fame is represnted in DDO by a specific number and that number is renown and large guilds earn more of it than tiny guilds. The guild that earns the most renown has the most fame by definition. The logic still applies. To make a proper ranking of GUILDS, you can't divide by number of players. To do so makes it a comparison of players and not of GUILDS. We have all been brainwashed by the old decay system into thinking this was a proper way to rank GUILDS, but logically it isn't and never was.

I believe I have made my point so now I am willing to talk about how to make things more equitable for smaller guilds. First, going back to the old decay system is just about the worst thing that could possibly be done. It is not only logically flawed, but it would bring back the incentives to shun casual/social players and bar guilds with lots of such players from advancing forever. Instead we should keep the new, logically correct, system and increase the small guild bonuses so that small and tiny guilds remain viable. Make no mistake about it, these are pure subsidies given to the smaller guilds, because they just can't compete with the larger guilds without help. How much of an increase is needed? At the very least, it needs to be enough to ensure that they will not stagnate and be unable to advance. I think only the devs have enough data to say how much is needed to keep them advancing at a reasonable rate so they will be viable options for players. So I would recommend the devs set the new bonuses as appropriate.

[McFlay]

It may represent fame and fame may be abstract, but that fame is represnted in DDO by a specific number and that number is renown and large guilds earn more of it than tiny guilds. The guild that earns the most renown has the most fame by definition. The logic still applies. To make a proper ranking of GUILDS, you can't divide by number of players. To do so makes it a comparison of players and not of GUILDS. We have all been brainwashed by the old decay system into thinking this was a proper way to rank GUILDS, but logically it isn't and never was.

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Its like your in the navy, and expect everyone to think your a tough guy. Quite a few people aren't going to. However, if your a navy seal and expect people to think your a tough guy, well in that case your right. Sure the navy as a whole has more people in it, but the seals get the wow factor.

I believe I have made my point so now I am willing to talk about how to make things more equitable for smaller guilds. First, going back to the old decay system is just about the worst thing that could possibly be done. It is not only logically flawed, but it would bring back the incentives to shun casual/social players and bar guilds with lots of such players from advancing forever. Instead we should keep the new, logically correct, system and increase the small guild bonuses so that small and tiny guilds remain viable. Make no mistake about it, these are pure subsidies given to the smaller guilds, because they just can't compete with the larger guilds without help. How much of an increase is needed? At the very least, it needs to be enough to ensure that they will not stagnate and be unable to advance. I think only the devs have enough data to say how much is needed to keep them advancing at a reasonable rate so they will be viable options for players. So I would recommend the devs set the new bonuses as appropriate.

And what the devs would see is a lot of large guilds plateaud in the 60-70 range, and a lot of small guilds who haven't even made it that far yet. I think the only logically correct system you'd agree with is one thats just a big giant easy button for everyone to be part of a level 100 guild and not have to worry about guild level ever.

[Tshober]

The most renowned guilds on Sarlona (based on how good they are) are not the biggest guild. .

In the game DDO, renown/fame is represented by a specific number and that number is guild renown. The guild with the most guild renown has the most renown/fame in DDO. What you, or anyone else outside of the game, thinks of them is irrelevent. In the world of DDO they have the most renown/fame. If you want to rank guilds on renown/fame, the logical way to do so is by guild renown. If instead of using guild renown, you use guild renown divided by numbers of players, then you are no longer ranking guilds, you are ranking players. A GUILD leveling system logically should be ranking GUILDS, not the players within the guilds.

[theslimshady]

this unfair/work harder argument is really frustrating
i never see any numbers only speculation
saying a guild because it is large is inactive or idle is insulting
my guild decays is 1 million renown a week no small guild every has bleed 1 million renown in a week the math did not allow it
so by defending truly biased leaderbords based on renown gained lets include stolen renown from decay to them leaderbords
so hard numbers last year we went from 76 -73 and are at around 20 million renown
we decay at 150k+ a day which is a million decay a week thats 52 million last year in decay alone so my guild who gets called lazy and inactive
has a grand total of over 72 million renown picked from quests and chests and drops
i would put on the leader-bored my 72 million renown picked last year against any guild that ever exsisted however by the ole rules only 20 million counts thats whats wrong with the system everything the guild leaderbored is saying does not do anything to ever add credibility to them guilds cause the whole system is phoney
if anything just like steroids they should have no chance in making it to the hall of fame based on exploiting a system that they are clearly aware by evidence that
1 does not reward guilds that clearly make more total renown in a week
2 does not have the biggest number of players
3 incourages small elite closed door policy thats leads to exclusion

so to stop this leaderbored thing lets make it renown aquired instead of renown gained and i will even give the small guilds there bonus no matter what they still wouldnt compete they activity would be to little

[Chaos000]

As I said, the old system wasn't perfect but it did achieve what the devs are saying here, fixing any unfairness in it wouldn't have taken more than some tweaking with numbers.

Which gets us back to the question above: Has the purpose of the system changed?

The old system punished active players by counting casual players when factoring decay. I am pretty sure that wasn't something that was considered at the inception of renown.

The new system took casual players out of the equation by making player size irrelevant. Small guilds are arguing there should either be 0 decay or that the old system was preferable because the bonus to renown that they currently receive was not equitable with this change to help a small guild with casual players progress as well. (meaning casual players in small guilds were being punished MORE than casual players in larger guilds)

Assuming that 0 decay is not an option. The solution would be in the old system to make the adjustment of not factoring an account as part of a daily decay if it has not acquired renown in a 24 hour period. This way in a 50 or 10 account guild, if only 6 members were active they would also get a 300% bonus to their renown gained that day for the amount of activity they contributed against the decay.

Something else that might work. In the new system, in a small guild (limit 10), for each account that has not acquired renown in a 24 hour period boosts the bonus to the renown gained by +50%. (6 guild members, only 1 logged in. The renown gained for that day is adjusted by 550%) Should an account not acquire renown in a month or longer their bonus no longer applies and is not factored in the guild size.

Bottom line. Going back to the old system is bad.

[slarden]

The old system punished active players by counting casual players when factoring decay. I am pretty sure that wasn't something that was considered at the inception of renown.

The new system took casual players out of the equation by making player size irrelevant. Small guilds are arguing there should either be 0 decay or that the old system was preferable because the bonus to renown that they currently receive was not equitable with this change to help a small guild with casual players progress as well. (meaning casual players in small guilds were being punished MORE than casual players in larger guilds)

Assuming that 0 decay is not an option. The solution would be in the old system to make the adjustment of not factoring an account as part of a daily decay if it has not acquired renown in a 24 hour period. This way in a 50 or 10 account guild, if only 6 members were active they would also get a 300% bonus to their renown gained that day for the amount of activity they contributed against the decay.

Something else that might work. In the new system, in a small guild (limit 10), for each account that has not acquired renown in a 24 hour period boosts the bonus to the renown gained by +50%. (6 guild members, only 1 logged in. The renown gained for that day is adjusted by 550%) Should an account not acquire renown in a month or longer their bonus no longer applies and is not factored in the guild size.

Bottom line. Going back to the old system is bad.

This is not true, both small and large guild have players that are less active and casual. It is wrong to give rewards based soley on guild size. The old system was equitable and not perfect. The new system is not equitable and not perfect. We need to restore fairness and build from the old system.

[Tshober]

Judging a guild based on total renown earned is complete nonsense. The original system factored in guild size so that people weren't forced to huge guilds.

The origial system was complete nonsense.

Why can't people form small guilds and have the same opportunity as large guilds?
.

When you argue that guilds of ALL sizes should be treated exactly equally, then that means even guilds with 1 member must be treated equally. That means your argument boils down into an argument that makes grouping together into guilds meaningless from an advancement perspective. You are just as well off to go it solo as to group into a guild with others. At that point, why even bother with guilds at all? Just give every individual player the ability to earn their own private airships and buffs and they would be able to do so just as easily and quickly as guilds with any number of players in them.

[Chaos000]

This is not true, both small and large guild have players that are less active and casual. It is wrong to give rewards based soley on guild size. The old system was equitable and not perfect. The new system is not equitable and not perfect. We need to restore fairness and build from the old system.

Do you mean like rewarding small guilds with a renown bonus multiplier? By your statement that size should not be rewarded the renown bonus should not be based on size.

[eris2323]

Lisa: Bu-- my parents are counting on seeing me dance! And I've worked ever so hard.
Vicki: I'm sorry, Lisa, but giving everyone an equal part when they're clearly not equal is called what, again, class?
Class: Communism!
Vicki: That's right. And I didn't tap all those Morse code messages to the Allies 'til my shoes filled with blood to just roll out the welcome mat for the Reds.

[slarden]

The solution would be in the old system to make the adjustment of not factoring an account as part of a daily decay if it has not acquired renown in a 24 hour period. This way in a 50 or 10 account guild,

Bottom line. Going back to the old system is bad.

Another example that won't work. This punishes the person that runs for a little bit each day and rewards the person that runs all day on Saturday and no other time during the week.

Both the new system and your proposals are less fair than the original system which determine guild level increases by one thing - renown earned per account per day. I think the decay curve from 55 is too steep, but at least it was equitable. I would like to see DDO just lower the decay amounts - this would help large/medium/smal guilds and reduce the impact of casual and less active players on all guilds.

[Viisari]

The origial system was complete nonsense.

Says you. It was far more logical and fair than what they had on live for the few days.

When you argue that guilds of ALL sizes should be treated exactly equally, then that means even guilds with 1 member must be treated equally.

Sure, why not. Though that wasn't the case even before, renown decay was calculated for 10 players at minimum even if you had less.

That means your argument boils down into an argument that makes grouping together into guilds meaningless from an advancement perspective. You are just as well off to go it solo as to group into a guild with others. At that point, why even bother with guilds at all? Just give every individual player the ability to earn their own private airships and buffs and they would be able to do so just as easily and quickly as guilds with any number of players in them.

This is stupid. I've never heard of anyone who formed a guild for the sole purpose of gaining levels in it. Well, except for that one dude who soloed a guild to level 100 from scratch to prove a point, but he wasn't exactly playing the game, he was playing the guild system.

Guilds are social constructs and people should have the freedom to choose how large or small they want their constructs to be without worrying about how it'll affect their ability to gain renown. You love your huge guilds, we get it, but me and thousands of others don't like large guilds, so why should you have it easier with the removal of size multipliers. It makes no sense.

As I've said several times before: the old system wasn't perfect, but at least it attempted to give a fair chance to guilds of all sizes. What was on live did nothing of the like.

Do you mean like rewarding small guilds with a renown bonus multiplier? By your statement that size should not be rewarded the renown bonus should not be based on size.

The bonus is not there to reward anyone, it's there to make sure they can keep up with the large guilds.

Say a guild of 10 players is really active and everyone in there pulls 5 legendaries every day. That would equal to 170 000 renown per day.

Now here we have another guild with 200 players who are only pulling one legendary each every day, they'd make 200 000 renown every day even though their players aren't putting nearly as much effort into getting renown.

If the guild of ten players had no renown bonus they'd only get 50 000 renown per day, 1/4th of what the large guild is getting even though the players of the small guild are spending much, much more time and effort into getting renown.

What this means that if there was no renown bonus for small guilds they'd either have to completely nolife to advance in guild levels or they would be unable to do it at all.

[Tshober]

Both the new system and your proposals are less fair than the original system which determine guild level increases by one thing - renown earned per account per day. I think the decay curve from 55 is too steep, but at least it was equitable. I would like to see DDO just lower the decay amounts - this would help large/medium/smal guilds and reduce the impact of casual and less active players on all guilds.

The old system was NOT equitable. It was horribly unfair to casual/social players and to the guilds who had lots of those players in them. Further, it encouraged and rewarded the shunning of casual/social players and was harmful to DDO's social environment.

The new system does no substantial harm to any guild or type of player, when directly compared to the old system. It does help larger guilds more than it helps smaller guilds but there is a big difference between not helping and harming. Going back to the old system directly harms casual/social players and guilds that have lots of those players.

[McFlay]

This is stupid. I've never heard of anyone who formed a guild for the sole purpose of gaining levels in it.

If this were true, why are there so many people complaining about renown decay and guild level. If people didn't care they'd be happy with a level 1 guild and anything over that is just a bonus, but the fact a lot of peopel are crying they end up hovering in the 60something range tells me otherwise.

[Viisari]

The old system was NOT equitable. It was horribly unfair to casual/social players and to the guilds who had lots of those players in them. Further, it encouraged and rewarded the shunning of casual/social players and was harmful to DDO's social environment.

But then again, the highest levels were never designed so they could be achieved by casual players. And this was done intentionally.

That doesn't mean it is unfair, focused groups who wished high guild levels spent a lot of effort the get them. In those groups every player has to pull his weight. What did your casual players do for them?

Going after high guild levels is a choice you have to make just as choosing shun casual or social players is a choice. Even my guild is currently pretty much stuck in the guild levels and nobody has been removed from the guild because of that.

The new system does no substantial harm to any guild or type of player, when directly compared to the old system. It does help larger guilds more than it helps smaller guilds but there is a big difference between not helping and harming. Going back to the old system directly harms casual/social players and guilds that have lots of those players.

So nobody is going to leave small guilds because they see the huge guilds that start going through the levels really quickly? The leaders of these large guilds were arguing just a few weeks ago that they're losing people to small guilds because they can advance in guild levels, why wouldn't the opposite happen here? People leaving small guilds for the large ones because they're now the ones advancing quickly.

You are so biased it's not even funny, what you've basically been saying is "well hey, tough luck" while giving the middle finger to all small guilds.

[Chaos000]

The bonus is not there to reward anyone, it's there to make sure they can keep up with the large guilds.

Say a guild of 10 players is really active and everyone in there pulls 5 legendaries every day. That would equal to 170 000 renown per day.

Now here we have another guild with 200 players who are only pulling one legendary each every day, they'd make 200 000 renown every day even though their players aren't putting nearly as much effort into getting renown.

Ok say there are 10 players all active in a 10 account guild. 20 players just as active in a 200 account guid say each player pulls the same amount of renown each... Which guild progresses more? How is this fair? More players working just as hard with no progress. We see that as the norm in the old system

[Viisari]

If this were true, why are there so many people complaining about renown decay and guild level. If people didn't care they'd be happy with a level 1 guild and anything over that is just a bonus, but the fact a lot of peopel are crying they end up hovering in the 60something range tells me otherwise.

Well I dunno, perhaps I'm old fashioned or something, but to me guilds are places to meet friends, run stuff, talk about useless stuff with other people and generally have fun. They're for people who have similar goals in the game with similar playstyles.

An ideal guild for me is around 20-30 players I get along with well, players who like running EE content, raids, loot runs, speed runs, quick TR's, going for max favor. People who like talking **** in the ventrilo and poking fun of each other.

I am in a guild like that, we might be powergamers or w/e, but we don't really take the game terribly seriously either. We have lots of people with wives and kids, everyone of us has a job or is studying full time, some spend time on hobbies other than DDO, go on vacations and take breaks (like I'm currently doing). This hybrid of a powergaming/casual guild has still managed to get to guild level 95, though now it looks like our progress has ended or at least slowed down a lot.

Our guild has never, ever farmed for renown and never will, we don't care if you take legendaries from end rewards but do encourage it. Yet if I recall right we've been still pulling something like 3-5 legendaries per player every day on average which is far more than the guilds who get stuck in the 60's or 70's are pulling. That has probably slowed down quite a bit now due to many of our players being inactive or playing very casually these days. And that shows, we're not really advancing through the levels much, if at all currently.

And that is completely fair, we're putting little to no effort towards the levels and many of our players aren't really playing that much. Why should we be advancing in the levels if this is the case?

Now perhaps there are people who have made serious guilds with the sole purpose of gaining levels, but that's not really what guilds are here for. Guilds were here before guild levels or guild ships and were doing just fine and they'll be here long after guild levels are gone if that day is to ever come.

Ok say there are 10 players all active in a 10 account guild. 20 players just as active in a 200 account guid say each player pulls the same amount of renown each... Which guild progresses more? How is this fair? More players working just as hard with no progress. We see that as the norm in the old system

It is fair because they're gaining the renown for 200 people, not for ten people like the other guild is. Why should they be able to carry ten times their number of people to fame?

[Tshober]

Going after high guild levels is a choice you have to make just as choosing shun casual or social players is a choice. Even my guild is currently pretty much stuck in the guild levels and nobody has been removed from the guild because of that.

Yes, that is a choice made by some players. But some players didn't get to choose in the old decay system. In the old system, a casual/social player who gets kicked out because they are unable to generate enough renown each day, didn't get to choose. They were just kicked with no choice offered to them. They also didn't really get to choose which guild to join after getting kicked because most guilds would not invite them. In the new system, players also have a choice. They can stay in a small guild or join a larger guild or grow into a larger guild. The difference is, in the new system, everyone involved has a choice and all of the choices are purely voluntary. No one is forced out with no choice.

You are so biased it's not even funny, what you've basically been saying is "well hey, tough luck" while giving the middle finger to all small guilds.

You have treated casual/social players and the guilds who have lots of them as members exactly the way you describe I have treated small guilds.

I have advocated for increasing the small guild bonuses so that small and tiny guilds can advance and level up like everyone else. What have you suggested that would eliminate the incentives to shun casual/social players or to help out guilds who have lots of such players?

[Chaos000]

It is fair because they're gaining the renown for 200 people, not for ten people like the other guild is. Why should they be able to carry ten times their number of people to fame?

So the active players in large guilds SHOULD be penalized for keeping casual players on their roster despite a higher number of players making the same effort as a small guild

[McFlay]

So the active players in large guilds SHOULD be penalized for keeping casual players on their roster despite a higher number of players making the same effort as a small guild

If you want to make a legit comparison amongst guild sizes you can't compare a 100 person guild with 10 super active players and 90 casual players to a 10 person guild of 10 super active players. The proper comparison would be to compare the 100 person guild with 10 super active players and 90 casual players to a small guild with 1 super active player and 9 casual players.