Guild Renown Changes

[McFlay]

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.

You pretty much sum up the entire thread right here. A small guild with 3/4 of a roster of casual players isn't really any better off then a large guild with 3/4 of a casual roster.

People just refuse to admit that to themselves and keep trying to compare a handful of small guilds full of hardcore DDO'ers to their large casual guilds, while turning a blind eye to the fact that their large casual guild still manages to get to and maintain a higher level then most small casual guilds ever get.

[theslimshady]

no the people hiding behind the current system cant wrap there minds around the idea that my guild of 200 people gained 52 million renown last year to lose 3 levels
somehow we still have to listen to this fair to unfair aurgument or active to inactive aurgument the old system is broke it needs to be fixed
look how bad the little guilds are screaming for just a slight increase image if it was told to them that they wont ever go forward because it might hurt a very small minorty of players in this game is ludicrous

[Viisari]

People just refuse to admit that to themselves and keep trying to compare a handful of small guilds full of hardcore DDO'ers to their large casual guilds, while turning a blind eye to the fact that their large casual guild still manages to get to and maintain a higher level then most small casual guilds ever get.

Now now, who told you that you could use logic or comparisons that make sense in this thread?

no the people hiding behind the current system cant wrap there minds around the idea that my guild of 200 people gained 52 million renown last year to lose 3 levels
somehow we still have to listen to this fair to unfair aurgument or active to inactive aurgument the old system is broke it needs to be fixed
look how bad the little guilds are screaming for just a slight increase image if it was told to them that they wont ever go forward because it might hurt a very small minorty of players in this game is ludicrous

Yes and my guild has lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 million renown to decay during the last year or so, what's your point? You think renown decay only applies to large guilds? Currently we have about 21 active accounts in our guild which means that each person has had to earn about one million renown during that year just to beat the renown decay. We were also growing during this time which means we were in fact gaining much more renown than that.

Each member of your guild on the other hand only had to earn 260 000 renown to counter your decay, even if we take small guild bonus into account, each member of my guild had to earn around double the amount of renown when compared to your guildies just to break even.

[McFlay]

no the people hiding behind the current system cant wrap there minds around the idea that my guild of 200 people gained 52 million renown last year to lose 3 levels
somehow we still have to listen to this fair to unfair aurgument or active to inactive aurgument the old system is broke it needs to be fixed
look how bad the little guilds are screaming for just a slight increase image if it was told to them that they wont ever go forward because it might hurt a very small minorty of players in this game is ludicrous

Cool and what level is your guild, level 70 something? You pull at the rate of approx. 250k per person per year. My small guild for the last two years has been averaging a rate of 1.5 million per player per year. Divide that by 4 to assume we had the max bonus the entire time and we pulled more per player per year then your large guild, and I bet your still 20 levels above us. Yet here you are, complaining you have it worse then everyone else.

[slarden]

no the people hiding behind the current system cant wrap there minds around the idea that my guild of 200 people gained 52 million renown last year to lose 3 levels
somehow we still have to listen to this fair to unfair aurgument or active to inactive aurgument the old system is broke it needs to be fixed
look how bad the little guilds are screaming for just a slight increase image if it was told to them that they wont ever go forward because it might hurt a very small minorty of players in this game is ludicrous

Nobody is screaming. We just don't want to replace a flawed system with an even worse system. Why not just get rid of decay all together rather than requiring small guilds to generate enormous amount of renown to cover decay while large guilds need next to nothing.

Most small casual guilds never crack 50 even under the old system. The guild system requires members to play actively to maintain and grow their guild level once you get to 26. For every large guild that gets stuck in a level range, there are 20+ small guilds that get stuck in a level range. It was never a problem for just big guilds and guild size was not the issue. The math worked out for all guild sizes under the old system. It doesn't under the new system, small guilds are burdened while big guilds have an easy march to 100.

[theslimshady]

THIS tired ole system has only produced level 100 guilds 24 member or smaller
so do to majorty rules this seems to indicate only a small minorty of the playing publics cring for no change

that the leaderboards are biased based on nothing but structure of a guild not about amount of renown gained

that under the current renown system large guilds have no chance to obtain 100 levels ever based on the fact there is 0

matters of fact i am not even sure meduim size has hit the 100 platform ever either {so 50 or under}

that the idea of prestige is a factor is nonsense cause the horse-race was over when the first hit 100 {even if i didnt like it }

so imo the first say 10 in that order to hit 100 should be enshrined with a statue or something {this would be over already there is 10 right?}

-renown should be thrown out so guilds can get back to having fun and hanging out with friends without being forced to follow a certain mold to get buffs { xp being most important }and decay can stop taking the enjoymeat out of the game for all guild leaders in genral

[Dirac]

This thread demonstrates how important Drakesan's guild leader survey was.

The renown decay mechanism is/was completely broken, and there has never been any intellectually honest defense for it. Many have pointed this out previously, but the arguments go back and forth anyway (like here), so one might think the playerbase is split on the issue.

We are not:

Like: 10
Dislike: 92
Meh: 21

Not only is the system broken, almost no one likes it. The current discussion does not need to continue. All that is left is to suggest what the new system will look like that fixes the problems, the most obvious one being active guilds not advancing. Removing all renown decay would be a worthwhile first step.

[Chaos000]

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.

I'm actually ok with that. In both the scenario of 2 super active players and 8 casual players and 20 super active players and 80 casual players... Does a small or large guild make more of a progression assuming all the active players pull in the equal amount of renown? Arguing that size should not be rewarded is making the case that under the old system small guild should not be awarded bonuses. More casuals resulting in larger decay under the old system is not equitable because larger guilds have a higher potential of having more casual players.

Active players should not be penalized for having casual players in their guild. There should not be an incentive to remove the casual players ("who aren't pulling their weight") as a tradeoff to making any progression.

[Tshober]

This thread demonstrates how important Drakesan's guild leader survey was.

The renown decay mechanism is/was completely broken, and there has never been any intellectually honest defense for it. Many have pointed this out previously, but the arguments go back and forth anyway (like here), so one might think the playerbase is split on the issue.

We are not:

Like: 10
Dislike: 92
Meh: 21

Not only is the system broken, almost no one likes it. The current discussion does not need to continue. All that is left is to suggest what the new system will look like that fixes the problems, the most obvious one being active guilds not advancing. Removing all renown decay would be a worthwhile first step.

I am good with that. I have made several proposals that I think would work well and would leave no guilds and no play-styles unable to advance. But when I see people advocating going back to the old decay system, I feel the need to explain what a poor system it actually was.

[slarden]

This thread demonstrates how important Drakesan's guild leader survey was.

The renown decay mechanism is/was completely broken, and there has never been any intellectually honest defense for it. Many have pointed this out previously, but the arguments go back and forth anyway (like here), so one might think the playerbase is split on the issue.

We are not:

Like: 10
Dislike: 92
Meh: 21

Not only is the system broken, almost no one likes it. The current discussion does not need to continue. All that is left is to suggest what the new system will look like that fixes the problems, the most obvious one being active guilds not advancing. Removing all renown decay would be a worthwhile first step.

I dislike the old system. The proposed replacement system is far worse.

[McFlay]

THIS tired ole system has only produced level 100 guilds 24 member or smaller
so do to majorty rules this seems to indicate only a small minorty of the playing publics cring for no change

that the leaderboards are biased based on nothing but structure of a guild not about amount of renown gained

that under the current renown system large guilds have no chance to obtain 100 levels ever based on the fact there is 0

matters of fact i am not even sure meduim size has hit the 100 platform ever either {so 50 or under}

that the idea of prestige is a factor is nonsense cause the horse-race was over when the first hit 100 {even if i didnt like it }

so imo the first say 10 in that order to hit 100 should be enshrined with a statue or something {this would be over already there is 10 right?}

-renown should be thrown out so guilds can get back to having fun and hanging out with friends without being forced to follow a certain mold to get buffs { xp being most important }and decay can stop taking the enjoymeat out of the game for all guild leaders in genral

And if each of your members were pulling the same number of trophies per day as those smaller guilds you'd have hit 100 faster and stayed there.

[Dirac]

I just curious, but I wonder if there is a problem confusing two very different types of guild renown:

meta-game renown: This is what the accountant on the other side of the computer controlling the avatar thinks of your guild. Are all your members awesome, competent, lead good raids, die too often, don't know what is going on, rude, helpful, etc.

in-game renown: This is what Cydonie and Gerald Goodblade think of your guild. What counts is if (and how often) your protected the Havadasher, defeated the Stormreaver, or stopped the invasion.

I think it is a serious mistake for an in-game mechanic to try to measure meta-game renown. A lot of it can't be measured anyway. In-game renown is fairly straight-forward, it is the number of quests your guild completes, monsters killed, chests opened. Kind of what we have now (once decay is eliminated). As long as we are clear on the distinction, and not try to create an in-game mechanic to quantify meta-game guild renown, the path forward is easier.

[Chaos000]

I wouldn't be opposed to renown being measured by the total favor gained. Decay per player should be lower but it could be something I could get behind.

[Beidel]

We have an 82 level guild on Thelanis with 19 active members. Prior to the change our decay was roughly 45,000 renown per day. Since we hit 80 in December it has been everything we could do just to keep up with decay and we have been bouncing between 80-82 since. If most of our members do not log on daily, we lose renown. Since the change our decay is roughly 33,000 per day which has been helpful but still painful. I personally would like it lowered a bit more to help the smaller guilds. The build your guild event was also tremendously helpful and maybe should be implemented more often.

[McFlay]

More casuals resulting in larger decay under the old system is not equitable because larger guilds have a higher potential of having more casual players.

And here is what is wrong with your entire argument. Stop looking at the very small minority of small guilds with a dozen power gamers in them and comparing that to a casual guild. If all the level 100 small guilds merged into 1 guild they'd have no problem getting to and keeping level 100. There are plenty of small guilds that hover in the 30-40 range forever because they are mostly casuals, yet you don't compare your large casual guild to those. Hmm...wonder why.

You just keep comparing apples to oranges. Try comparing apples for a change. Large guilds don't get crippled by decay, casual guilds do, there is a big difference between the two.

[Viisari]

THIS tired ole system has only produced level 100 guilds 24 member or smaller

The reasons for this have been pointed out in this thread so many times that I'm not even going to bother with repeating them.

that under the current renown system large guilds have no chance to obtain 100 levels ever based on the fact there is 0

I guess you missed what Fernando said about the highest guild levels.

that the idea of prestige is a factor is nonsense cause the horse-race was over when the first hit 100 {even if i didnt like it }

Of course it's a factor, getting to and maintaining level 100 is still quite an achievement even if you weren't the first one there.

-renown should be thrown out so guilds can get back to having fun and hanging out with friends without being forced to follow a certain mold to get buffs { xp being most important }and decay can stop taking the enjoymeat out of the game for all guild leaders in genral

You are forced to do nothing. Making a big deal out of renown and renown decay is a conscious choice your guild has made.

The renown decay mechanism is/was completely broken, and there has never been any intellectually honest defense for it.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. There's been plenty of perfectly reasonable explanations for why the current mechanics are pretty decent for what they're trying to achieve.

Does a small or large guild make more of a progression assuming all the active players pull in the equal amount of renown?

The larger guild will get to higher guild levels and it will do it much, much quicker. Not sure if the smaller guild would even have the time to get stuck in levels during this decade, guess it depends on how active the two players are.

Arguing that size should not be rewarded is making the case that under the old system small guild should not be awarded bonuses.

I explained the reasoning for size bonus a few hours ago and here you are talking utter nonsense again. If you wanted to get rid of both small guild bonus and size penalty multiplier then you'd have to overhaul the whole renown system.

More casuals resulting in larger decay under the old system is not equitable because larger guilds have a higher potential of having more casual players.

Casuals actually hurt small guilds more because they increase their decay and decrease their size bonus. By far the majority of all guilds in DDO are small casual guilds and they're the ones who're actually hurting the most under the old system. All the big guilds crying here have gotten almost all ship buffs and the larger ships ages ago, these small guilds don't even have those.

I was actually thinking a while ago that they should implement the new renown decay system for levels 26-85 and at level 86 the old decay system would kick in again. You'd have the option to lock your renown so you wouldn't start bouncing between levels 85 and 86. It would of course require tuning to make it fair towards all sizes of guilds for the new system.

[FranOhmsford]

I just curious, but I wonder if there is a problem confusing two very different types of guild renown:

meta-game renown: This is what the accountant on the other side of the computer controlling the avatar thinks of your guild. Are all your members awesome, competent, lead good raids, die too often, don't know what is going on, rude, helpful, etc.

in-game renown: This is what Cydonie and Gerald Goodblade think of your guild. What counts is if (and how often) your protected the Havadasher, defeated the Stormreaver, or stopped the invasion.

I think it is a serious mistake for an in-game mechanic to try to measure meta-game renown. A lot of it can't be measured anyway. In-game renown is fairly straight-forward, it is the number of quests your guild completes, monsters killed, chests opened. Kind of what we have now (once decay is eliminated). As long as we are clear on the distinction, and not try to create an in-game mechanic to quantify meta-game guild renown, the path forward is easier.

Meta-Game Renown "Could" be significant IF - The Devs allowed Renown to be earned for:

1. Explorers/Slayers/Rares

2. Crafting

3. Advice {Good advice obviously} - There are plenty of people in game who answer newbies questions in Harbour and Korthos.

4. Pugging Challenging Quests/Raids - No more than 2 players from Leader's Guild in Quest or 4 Players from Leader's Guild in Raid.

5. Forums - Yes I said it Forums - Forum renown is a strange entity I know {it would need changing if the devs were to consider this} BUT some in-game renown should go to those who help people out on the forums.
Trolling could confer negative renown - Real Trolling that is.

6. Favour Farming/Over Levelling - This is the big one for me - The Over-Level penalties on renown are ridiculously Draconian!
Favour Milestones equally should garner Guild Renown as well as TP - Every 250 Favour earned = 2,500 Renown perhaps.

[Dirac]

I dislike the old system. The proposed replacement system is far worse.

That you keep saying this hurts you. the replacement system technically isn't worse for you at all, except in your feelings, seeing other guilds being helped and not yours, yet.

If you were to stop focusing on demanding other guilds not be helped, you would make so much more progress helping yours.

"Look, this new system helps large guilds who were stuck, but they were not the only ones. Small guilds were also stuck; active but not advancing. The new system helps them, which is great for them, but we need help too."

Your demand that everyone acknowledge that which is simply not true (the change is somehow worse for guilds not advancing), is hurting our ability to change the system to benefit your guild. This bickering only increases the possibility the devs will not change the system at all because they think too many people are against change. We should be on the same side.

[Viisari]

We should be on the same side.

No. I'd rather they not touch the system at all than implement their previous test back in the state it was in.

[Tshober]

Large guilds don't get crippled by decay, casual guilds do, there is a big difference between the two.

I truly don't understand how you can advocate going back to the old decay system that had far more decay and hurt far more casual/social players than the new one does. If you REALLY cared about casual/social players, this would be a no brainer. Many of us would like to also help the casual players in tiny guilds too, but reverting back to massive decay that hurts all casual/social players is seriously the wrong way to go about that. Why do you insist on begrudging those that have been helped? Why not work toward extending that help to those that have not been helped yet?