Guild Renown Changes

[Viisari]

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?

You do realize that the changes did pretty much nothing for small guilds? The ones who reaped the benefits from it were the big guilds, medium guilds got some minor relief and small guilds got nothing.

The small guilds that might actually feel some change from it were the ones who were already over level 90 or so.

[Tshober]

You do realize that the changes did pretty much nothing for small guilds?

Well, Yes, if you had read my post you would have seen that I acknowledged that not everyone had been helped yet and I offered my support in working toward extending help to those that had not yet.

[McFlay]

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?

It doesnt hurt casual players. Last I checked any guild with any ship buffs helped casual players, unless low level guilds give all its members perm debuffs that I don't know about.

All you want to see is a system where everyone hits 100. I don't want to see that. I'm not at 100, and most likeley never will be. I want decay to stay, and if Turbine is going to overhaul it, it should effect guilds of all sizes equally. Otherwise you just end up with the post-change decay that is disgustingly skewed towards large guilds, where as the bias pre-change is only towards guilds with active rosters.

[slarden]

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.

This is absolutely not true. I have repeatedly suggested that decay be reduced to help larger guilds and offered other suggestions as well if you read back in the thread. You are in fact doing here what you are accusing me of.

The devs should not keep the new system - they should revise the old system to reduce decay and on a sliding scale for larger guilds. Requiring that my guild generates more than 10x more renown per account to cover decay vs. a 200 account guild is not fair any way you measure it. It's even worse for a 2 person guild. You say I offered nothing to help large guilds but you are wrong - read the posts. What are you offering to help small guilds like mine with a mix of active, inactive and casual gamers?

Small guilds have also been stuck and many were disbanded because of this. Yet you make it seem like a large guild problem when it is not and never has been. It's a problem that the decay curve gets too steep once you reach level 50-60. Small guilds get stuck well before this level because they have problem on both ends - generating renown and decay where large guilds only struggle with the decay part.

I am on the same side as reasonable people. I want to see decay reduced so that all guilds have a chance to get to level 85 and get the biggest ship with all the important ameneties. The curve can stay steep from 85 to 100 as that is mostly about bragging rights and not something that really impacts game play.

[theslimshady]

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.

and again another little guild talking about ; after over a year that no guild with more then 50 members has ever done this so what you are saying is pure speculation
the proof that the ole system favored little tiny guilds is based on nothing but the fact that there are multple guilds that reached 100 levels 24 members or less- 0 over 50 members that would be a hard fact

[theslimshady]

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.

does not matter just having a majority of paying customers saying its dumb it should be changed should be enough reason to overide a tiny minorty

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

he also said mabar would be up

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.

dont care i just want to use my tp point bought 5 percent shrines that i had level 74 and now i dont so i cant use this is a broken game mechanic to perchuse something for real money then not be able to use it

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

if you or your guildies bought something that uses real money and you could use then a week later you couldnt you sir would have a issue too and this nightmere has lasted over a year this in itself is a bad buisness model

[Tshober]

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.

I actually think some of these are just stealth supporters of the old decay system that are not willing to fess up to it. They will not accept any substantive change from the old decay system. Their purpose is to create bickering in hope that the devs will throw up their hands and go back to the old decay system. Unfortunately, to completely ignore them might lend a veneer of credability to their arguments. I don't see an option other than to keep pointing out the untruth of their claims. The devs are smart people. They should be able to see what is really going on here. It's pretty obvious who is wanting to cooperate and help everyone and who isn't.

[curiouspilot]

Great job stereotyping the complainers. Level 100, you did it! Good for you. Your guild may be casual, but I'd have to think you are very efficient. Group together, speed run the high level raids/quests, profit. Unfortunately, not all guilds are equiped like yours. My guild has 10 players, stretching across the spectrum of levels. We don't all get to play together, and we are of different levels of game expertise. Some will log-on and play one quest, one that may take him an hour to finish, one which experienced zergers can do in 3 minutes.

You can toss in all the stats you want. I don't care about any of that. This is a GAME, get it? I don't want to have to play like you to be 100. I don't care about hitting 100 tbh. I just want a level of return for our investment, be it slower than the "super" guilds, but some progress.

People have worried about spammer guilds returning. Really? You think there are that many new players coming into the game right now?

The best suggestion I've made (and seen) is that guild levels should go to 500, so you "super" guilds can still prattle on about your superiority. Turbine can give you announcements at every 25 levels telling the world how you are the best. Maybe even give you a mauve bat and a neon glowing guild name above your heads.

This is really an immature comment...Vansh did not brag about how superior he is, being in a level 100 guild. The stats he provided was to simply show everyone how this new change will progress large guild size guilds.

So here's an example for you. If I play basketball, and I don't really care how good Kobe Bryant is, and I also don't care about getting into NBA, maybe I should suggest them to change the basket in official games to ten feet high? So I can see how much those professional players really can do?

[slarden]

example with the following assumptions
- guilds start at minimum of level 60
- 30 days in the month
- large guild gets 50 renown per heroic deed and small guild gets 120 per heroic deed with 4 person small guild bonus

UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM

Level 60 guild with 4 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
-Needs to earn 9.45 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
-Needs to earn 47.58 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Level 60 guild with 200 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
- Needs to earn 4.76 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
- Needs to earn 6.60 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

UNDER THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

Level 60 guild with 4 people trying to get to level 61 in one month
-Needs to earn 9.45 heroic deeds per account per day to cover renown loss
-Needs to earn 47.58 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61

Level 60 guild with 200 accounts trying to get to level 61 in one month
- Needs to earn less than 1/2 of a heroic deed per account per day to cover renown loss
- Needs to earn 2.28 heroic deeds per account per day to level to 61 (this is less than 5% of what the 4 person guild must generate)

This example doesn't include the new renown reduction under the new system that will occur when a guild gains 1 level which I think will cause many small guilds to get caught in an infinite non-leveling loop unless they plan around it.

The mythology is that the old system favored small guilds. The math backs up that small guilds have always had to work harder to earn levels than large guilds. Under the new system this gap would get ridiculous and almost make small guilds obsolete. This is not right.

What about the money spent on guild elixirs to level our guild that is now obsolete? Will that be refunded?

[curiouspilot]

I know not everyone will approve, but for our situation, we no longer have to be concerned if a player's real life home and work situations will allow them to play regularly or not when inducting them into our guild. If they get along with us well, we can take them in even if they rarely play. We do not yet have such scrutiny in our rules, but I certainly have not been making an effort to recruit anyone who can rarely ever play to avoid feeling like I am adding a burden to the guild's efforts to hit level 70. Now, if the person is fun and a good fit, I'll take them right in. All due to this change by Turbine which our members appreciate.

In response to Vanshilar who I respect for all of his excellent renown research over the years, although you may be correct that a few players would play more if given more incentive (perhaps more guild events or more attention paid to their characters) in my experience, folks who don't logon much have real-life issues such as work, school, and family and no matter the incentive they would not be playing more often. Therefore, the reduction in decay is perfect to help those folks get into and remain in a caring, supportive guild.

I am gonna be perfectly honest here, but if they don't or can't play nearly as much as the rest of the members in the guild, then they ARE a burden to the guild, no offense intended.

Everyone's got a life outside of the game, so if the majority of the guild can remain active, why can't they? If they can't contribute to the guild, then they don't deserve to be in the guild at that level, period. If you allow those members to stay in the guild, then it's not fair for others because they may have sacrificed their own time to work on the renown.

And you're right, some people really don't have much time to spend on the game, so have them stay in a lower level guild, simple. After all, it's all about how much one cares about the game, if they have something else more important to do, they will get more things done there, not here in DDO.

[Chaos000]

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.

The example that you keep bringing up is how much less renown per account is required in a large guild in comparison to a small guild per account. Is there even a large guilds currently with the ranking of 100? I know for a fact that there are small guilds with the ranking of 100.

The point I'm making is that once you factor in an equal ratio of casual accounts, the old system favors smaller guilds EVEN IF larger guilds have MORE accounts generating the same amount of renown as a smaller guild per account. More players... working just as hard but having to generate more renown to cover the burden of casual players.

For example slarden figured his assumption comparing a lvl 60 guild with 4 accounts and a lvl 60 guild with 200 accounts. Take it a step further. lvl 60 guild with 4 accounts and 2 casual accounts (6 person small guild bonus) lvl 60 guild with 200 accounts 100 casual accounts. Assumption is that casual accounts log in once a month but does not generate any renown. Despite the burden does the large guild of 300 come out ahead of the small guild of 6 under the old system?

It's the casual gamer that is put at a disadvantage. You want to keep the old system? fine. But decay per day should not factor in casual gamers period.

[Tshober]

And you're right, some people really don't have much time to spend on the game, so have them stay in a lower level guild, simple. After all, it's all about how much one cares about the game, if they have something else more important to do, they will get more things done there, not here in DDO.

These people are paying customers too. The old decay system made them unwelcome in most DDO guilds and the only established guilds that would take them are stuck in place forever at lower levels. Virtually no other MMO has a level decay mechanism like DDO's that discriminates against casual/social players. Shunning them makes it much more likely they will choose to leave DDO for almost any other MMO that offers a gaming environment that is more tolerant of their chosen play-style.

And on top of that, it makes DDO's social environment just plain unfriendly. Getting rid of them from your guild does not solve the problem for DDO, it only solves it for you. We should be making casual/social players and new players feel welcome in DDO so they will stay and help the game grow and prosper. Our old decay system encouraged and rewarded exactly the opposite. I think it is well past time for that to be changed.

[McFlay]

and again another little guild talking about ; after over a year that no guild with more then 50 members has ever done this so what you are saying is pure speculation
the proof that the ole system favored little tiny guilds is based on nothing but the fact that there are multple guilds that reached 100 levels 24 members or less- 0 over 50 members that would be a hard fact

So whats your point? Power gamers who dump ridiculous amounts of time into the game and actually want to get their guild up to 100 tend to guild with other like minded power gamers? Why would such power gamers bother making 1 huge uberguild when if you have 10 people who all play 5-6 nights a week around the same time you already always have enough to run any 6 man content or form a solid backbone for any raid?

[curiouspilot]

Vanshilar is playing guild wars, DDO style, so a lot of what he says is irrelevant. Not necessarily wrong, and I appreciate his effort and data collection, but irrelevant. He says one very accurate and very useful thing:

"As already pointed out, the original renown system rewarded active players."

His entire house of cards starts falling apart when you ask a very simple question: why should a guild reward system be based on active players and not active guilds?

Since Vansh is probably too modest or too busy to reply, I'll attempt this.

First of all, I would like to ask, what do you define as an active guild? Is it a guild size 6 guild which everyone plays ten hours a day, or a guild size 60 guild which everyone plays an hour a day? I'd say both are active guilds, but does this mean anything in particular? No, nothing. There are plenty of active guilds out there, rewarding active guilds is like rewarding most of everybody, absolutely pointless.

Now rewarding individuals who spend time and work harder is another thing. It's almost like a real life situation, which if you work harder, have a higher education, you're more likely to get a high paid job, and needless for me to point out(but I guess I'd better), all companies out there are active, but are they all the same? Is Nokia active? yes. Is Apple active? yes. But would you work for Apple or Nokia? or rather, are you more qualified to work for Apple or Nokia? Now of course I don't mean to say that Nokia is a bad company, but it's certainly an inferior company when compared to Apple, according to their sales. So to conclude: The more competitive(active) a worker(player) you are, the more you deserve to be in a better company(guild), thus better paid(ship buffs, etc.)

Further, the old renown system is like Capitalism, and the new system is much like Communism, which everyone does little and expect great rewards, and we can all see how much that has done for China before they changed their ways. It's also like the invention of Euro, now most Europeans are lazy, except Germans are complaining, simply because they work the hardest and they get no particular return in hard working using the same currency. Basically they work hard so others can be lazy, now that, is not fair, which is the example why we need to reward active players, not active guilds, because some players care more about the game and they rush back to play after work and pay their full attention while playing, while some players just log on to chat mostly, and multi-tasking while they quest, therefore they don't deserve the same kind of benefits that high level guild members get(better ship buffs, recognition, access to high end raid gears, etc.)

In essence, it's either Karl Marx or Milton Friedman, take your pick.

Though I am sure Vansh can defend his points better than I can, but since he's not doing it, and some people here may think the reason why he made that post was because he's a member of a level 100 guild, therefore he's got to oppose to this new system. so here I am, a nobody, expressing my thoughts regarding this, while supporting what he posted, a hundred percent.

[McFlay]

For example slarden figured his assumption comparing a lvl 60 guild with 4 accounts and a lvl 60 guild with 200 accounts. Take it a step further. lvl 60 guild with 4 accounts and 2 casual accounts (6 person small guild bonus) lvl 60 guild with 200 accounts 100 casual accounts. Assumption is that casual accounts log in once a month but does not generate any renown. Despite the burden does the large guild of 300 come out ahead of the small guild of 6 under the old system?

Lulz, yeah, we should balance guild levels around players who log in once a month and don't pull any renown, thats a great idea.

What you'd end up seeing in guilds of varying sizes that all had a make up of 2/3 active, 1/3 casual players is the larger the guild, the faster they would level, and the lower they would plateau. If it takes your massive guild 2 months to hit 65ish and plateau, and it takes a small guild pulling a similiar amount of trophies per player per day to a year and a half, but they manage to hit 75 before they plateau, seems like a fair trade off to me.

Like I said before, if turbine wants it to be exactly fair, then take away small guild bonuses, redo the decay formula so its simply number of accounts x guild level, and scale renown required to level a guild by number of active accounts that would auto adjust as accounts join/leave/go inactive.

[curiouspilot]

These people are paying customers too. The old decay system made them unwelcome in most DDO guilds and the only established guilds that would take them are stuck in place forever at lower levels. Virtually no other MMO has a level decay mechanism like DDO's that discriminates against casual/social players. Shunning them makes it much more likely they will choose to leave DDO for almost any other MMO that offers a gaming environment that is more tolerant of their chosen play-style.

And on top of that, it makes DDO's social environment just plain unfriendly. Getting rid of them from your guild does not solve the problem for DDO, it only solves it for you. We should be making casual/social players and new players feel welcome in DDO so they will stay and help the game grow and prosper. Our old decay system encouraged and rewarded exactly the opposite. I think it is well past time for that to be changed.

That's one element which makes DDO a good MMO, and not others.

We're all paying customers, so we should be focusing on what's a good balance for the game. You know that it's easy to get into a level 60 guild, which has most essential ship buffs one could need. The only thing they won't get is the 4%/5% exp buff, so I don't think it's such a discrimination against them, not to mention the game can be played without ship buffs, and there are plenty of guildless players out there.

As far as I can see, most new players are welcomed by others in the world of DDO, and almost anyone can get into a guild no problem, but the question is, are they trying to get into a higher level guild than they deserve to get into?

Oh and please don't jump into conclusions. I am not in a high level guild, nor am I in a small guild, trying to compete with large guilds, so this will not affect me much, as in personal gain.

[slarden]

The example that you keep bringing up is how much less renown per account is required in a large guild in comparison to a small guild per account. Is there even a large guilds currently with the ranking of 100? I know for a fact that there are small guilds with the ranking of 100.

The point I'm making is that once you factor in an equal ratio of casual accounts, the old system favors smaller guilds EVEN IF larger guilds have MORE accounts generating the same amount of renown as a smaller guild per account. More players... working just as hard but having to generate more renown to cover the burden of casual players.

For example slarden figured his assumption comparing a lvl 60 guild with 4 accounts and a lvl 60 guild with 200 accounts. Take it a step further. lvl 60 guild with 4 accounts and 2 casual accounts (6 person small guild bonus) lvl 60 guild with 200 accounts 100 casual accounts. Assumption is that casual accounts log in once a month but does not generate any renown. Despite the burden does the large guild of 300 come out ahead of the small guild of 6 under the old system?

It's the casual gamer that is put at a disadvantage. You want to keep the old system? fine. But decay per day should not factor in casual gamers period.

I agree with what you are saying about casual gamers, but they impact small guilds and large guilds alike. Achieving level 100 was intended to be hard and I've done the math and no our small guild could never make level 100. I am not sure if we can even get to 80 based on play level, the steep decay curve and the extra work required by small guilds to begin with. The guilds that achieved level 100 or even 90+ did so by being extremely selective and ensuring that they only took players where there primary hobby in life was DDO. Those are going to be small just because there are very few people that fit that category and they won't all end up in the same guild. It's unrealistic to expect a guild that accepts anyone will generate the same amount of renown as a guild that only takes people whose favorite thing in life is DDO. Over the past few years I've probably received 30 random guild invites on my backpack toon that is not in a guild. It's unrealistic to expect people's backpack toons to generate renown when all they ever do is store items. If your guild spams random invites and ends up recruiting backpack toons - you can't expect to receive the same results as guilds that only want dedicated players that spend 20+ hours per week on DDO.

I think the easiest solution is to the lower decay and reduce the decay curve below 85. Above 85 benefits are marginal so let 85-100 be for bragging rights and a few items.

Other alternatives are lower the level requirements for ship ameneties and the bigger ships. I don't care what level my guild is really, but I would like a chance to get the biggest ship and all the key ameneties. The ameneties you get by 63/64 - the bigger ship @ 80/85 just lets you get a few more. If guilds can get the biggest ship and all key amenities by 60 I don't think anyone would care that much about renown and decay. The # of large guilds that can't make it to 60 is very small. 60 seems to be the place where large guilds start to have trouble. Most small guilds never even make it to 60.

[Tshober]

Further, the old renown system is like Capitalism, and the new system is much like Communism, which everyone does little and expect great rewards, and we can all see how much that has done for China before they changed their ways. It's also like the invention of Euro, now most Europeans are lazy, except Germans are complaining, simply because they work the hardest and they get no particular return in hard working using the same currency. Basically they work hard so others can be lazy, now that, is not fair, which is the example why we need to reward active players, not active guilds, because some players care more about the game and they rush back to play after work and pay their full attention while playing, while some players just log on to chat mostly, and multi-tasking while they quest, therefore they don't deserve the same kind of benefits that high level guild members get(better ship buffs, recognition, access to high end raid gears, etc.).

I am not sure why people insist on dragging politics into a game, but you have it exactly backwards. Tiny and small guilds can't possibly compete with larger guilds in renown earning power so renown decay, essentially a huge tax on renown earned, and small guild bonuses, subsidies, are introduced to "level the field" so that the smaller guilds can compete with the larger guilds. The larger the guild, the higher the renown tax rate they must pay daily. The smaller the guild, the more they are subsidised with renown bonuses. These are very much socialist/communist like policies.

As far as rewarding individuals who work harder, that would make some sense if the system were actually a player leveling system, but it is not. It is a guild leveling system. If you are going to rank guilds by renown, then the only way that makes sense to compare them is by total renown earned. If you instead use renown divided by number of players then you are no longer ranking guilds, you are ranking players.

For example, if you were going to rank countries in military power, would you take the total militay expenditures divided by polulation? Of course not, you would just use total military expenditures to rank them. If you were going to rank countries in economic power would you use GDP divided by population? Of course not, you would just use plain old GDP to rank them. That is because, in both cases, you are ranking countries, not the people in the countries. It is the same with guilds. If you want to rank guilds on renown then you can't divide by the numbers of players because then you would be ranking the players, not the guilds. The proper way to rank guilds on renown is by total renown earned by each GUILD.

[slarden]

I am not sure why people insist on dragging politics into a game, but you have it exactly backwards. Tiny and small guilds can't possibly compete with larger guilds in renown earning power so renown decay, essentially a huge tax on renown earned, and small guild bonuses, subsidies, are introduced to "level the field" so that the smaller guilds can compete with the larger guilds. The larger the guild, the higher the renown tax rate they must pay daily. The smaller the guild, the more they are subsidised with renown bonuses. These are very much socialist/communist like policies.

As far as rewarding individuals who work harder, that would make some sense if the system were actually a player leveling system, but it is not. It is a guild leveling system. If you are going to rank guilds by renown, then the only way that makes sense to compare them is by total renown earned. If you instead use renown divided by number of players then you are no longer ranking guilds, you are ranking players.

For example, if you were going to rank countries in military power, would you take the total militay expenditures divided by polulation? Of course not, you would just use total military expenditures to rank them. If you were going to rank countries in economic power would you use GDP divided by population? Of course not, you would just use plain old GDP to rank them. That is because, in both cases, you are ranking countries, not the people in the countries. It is the same with guilds. If you want to rank guilds on renown then you can't divide by the numbers of players because then you would be ranking the players, not the guilds. The proper way to rank guilds on renown is by total renown earned by each GUILD.

I am not even sure where to begin with this except to insert "no" in all the appropriate places. Small guilds have always had to earn the most renown per account to level and have always had to generate the most renown per account to cover decay - and that includes the small guild bonus being factored in. It is very simple math to confirm this. The purpose of guilds is to give a place for people to group together. It makes no sense to rank guilds based on size as every guild could get to 1000 characters if it wanted to.

This is a game and not an army or country. First and formost it needs to be fair and fun. Decay is not fun and should be reduced, but the math example I did above shows that small guilds were always disadvantaged, but with the proposed change it would be utterly ridiculous.

[Tshober]

Decay is not fun and should be reduced, but the math example I did above shows that small guilds were always disadvantaged, but with the proposed change it would be utterly ridiculous.

I agree that decay is not fun. IMO, it should be eliminted. You say reduced. The new system reduced it a lot, but only for guilds with more than 10 members.

I agree that smaller guilds are disadvantaged. They can't possibly compete with larger guilds in renown earning power. I said so explicitly in my post. I was merely pointing out that the old decay system used a huge renown tax (decay) that heavily taxed larger guilds and subsidies (bonuses) that favored smaller guilds to try to level the playing field. Whether that is a good thing or not, is another question.