Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

I saw no polls that had over 100 guild leaders responding that said they hated the new system, and the vast majority of responses I saw to the changes were positive.

Except for 1 or two people.... who really, really, really like to argue.

Oh I wouldn't call it arguing. This is an official feedback thread. And the problem is that most small guild members don't realize what is happening. They will when they see large guilds go up in level each week while small guilds get stuck for months. Don't you want to see small guilds get fair treatment? Why should only large guilds be helped when they had the easiest time leveling to 60 in the first place. Most small guilds never to get 50 and many are disbanded because of the difficulty in obtaining the levels necessary to get good ship buffs? What about the people that want to group with their small circle of friends?

You asked for math. What about the math a few posts above? Does that look fair?

[Dandonk]

I saw no polls that had over 100 guild leaders responding that said they hated the new system, and the vast majority of responses I saw to the changes were positive.

Except for 1 or two people.... who really, really, really like to argue.

I'm happy to support a system that doesn't hurt casuals, or at least hurts them as much.

But why does the payoff need to be that small guilds have to have it way harder than large ones? Why can't we find a more fair system instead, one that takes both points into account? Does it really have to be one or the other?

[Viisari]

Yes, I get it

After reading your post I can only say that no, you didn't get it at all.

[eris2323]

[QUOTE=slarden;4746755]Oh I never argue. And the problem is that most small guild members don't realize what is happening. They will when they see large guilds go up in level each week while small guilds get stuck for months. Don't you want to see small guilds get fair treatment? Why should only large guilds be helped when they had the easiest time leveling to 60 in the first place.[/QUOTE

No, my interests lie in making sure casual and new players have a home in guilds - large guilds. I'm not interested in small guilds, or the power-gamer guilds who figured out the renown formula and made 6-12 person guilds to try to game the system. Our guild is built to be a social community - and we created the tools that Turbine didn't give us, to make that happen.

For the people that have only small, real-life friends in their guild - that's your choice. You can always recruit. If you can't find a core of people willing to play under your banner, then does the guild really deserve to go up in the levels in the first place?

Large guilds never, ever had a choice. Since renown, there is always a wall. There is always a stopping point, and there is always a point where casual players are considered for expulsion.

This is what the 100+ guild leaders who left their mark had to say.

We want that to change.

[Dandonk]

We want that to change.

And you don't care that the new system was unfair, since it wasn't unfair to -you-.

Again, I support a change to make it easier on casuals. I just don't want it to be unfair to a different segment of the guild population.

[Tshober]

[QUOTE=Viisari;4746729]If the system is designed with some specific goals in mind and it achieves those goals you cannot call it illogical on those grounds.

What you can disagree with are the goals set when the system was designed.
QUOTE]

Yes, I disagree with the goals you stated.

[eris2323]

And you don't care that the new system was unfair, since it wasn't unfair to -you-.

Again, I support a change to make it easier on casuals. I just don't want it to be unfair to a different segment of the guild population.

I did not see the new system as unfair - it is rewarding active players - without penalizing casual players.

What people are not keeping in mind is Turbines stated text: THIS WAS A TEMPORARY change, to go along with OTHER CHANGES in the future, that are harder to program.

I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, until we heard what the other changes were.

Of course, the DDO community is up in arms immediately though, as they perceive the new system as unfair - when they didn't have the patience to see the other changes.

I hope this doesn't color turbines decision to make emergency changes in the future; they do something to make 100 guild leaders very happy, and then get complaints for days from the 5-10 people it annoyed.

[eris2323]

No, my interests lie in making sure casual and new players have a home in guilds - large guilds. I'm not interested in small guilds, or the power-gamer guilds who figured out the renown formula and made 6-12 person guilds to try to game the system. Our guild is built to be a social community - and we created the tools that Turbine didn't give us, to make that happen.

For the people that have only small, real-life friends in their guild - that's your choice. You can always recruit. If you can't find a core of people willing to play under your banner, then does the guild really deserve to go up in the levels in the first place?

Large guilds never, ever had a choice. Since renown, there is always a wall. There is always a stopping point, and there is always a point where casual players are considered for expulsion.

This is what the 100+ guild leaders who left their mark had to say.

We want that to change.

And there sums up your view point. You just want to help your own large guild and you could care less us about small guilds which by the way also have casual gamers. I am not a power gamer and neither are most of the people in small guilds. My guild could never reach 100 or 90 or even 80 due to the renown and decay formulas.

It's a falacy to assume that all casual gamers will join large guilds. You aren't interested in casual gamers, just your own guild.[/QUOTE]

Yup - I don't have much sympathy for you - you could always recruit, and give homes to new players.

[Viisari]

This is what the 100+ guild leaders who left their mark had to say.

According to this page there are currently 11542 guilds in DDO. From what I can tell that number is probably too low.

That means your 100+ guild leaders equal to about 0,87% of all guild leaders. A rather insignificant portion, don't you agree? And you still have no data about what even those hundred leaders of yours wanted to actually be done about the system. You don't know if they only wanted lesser renown decay for large guilds, easier leveling for small guilds or if they wanted to get rid of renown decay completely. Or perhaps they wanted something entirely else done.

The only thing you know that an insignificant portion of guild leaders dislike how the system is currently set up, you don't know their reasons for disliking it and you do not know what they would like to be done about it.

That means your poll is completely meaningless to this discussion here because what is being discussed here is not whether or not we should leave the current system as it is.

What is being discussed here is how to change the system, has the reasoning behind the system changed and how to ensure that the system is fair to guilds of all sizes.

But by all means, keep on pointing to your meaningless statistics if it makes you feel better even though they have no relevance to the discussion.

Yes, I disagree with the goals you stated.

Then why not simply say so instead of trying to dance around and trying to make the system sound like it had completely failed to meet the goals set for it?

I did not see the new system as unfair - it is rewarding active players - without penalizing casual players.

The only thing the new system rewarded was the number of accounts pulling renown. It rewarded absolutely nothing else.

[eris2323]

According to this page there are currently 11542 guilds in DDO. From what I can tell that number is probably too low.

That means your 100+ guild leaders equal to about 0,87% of all guild leaders. A rather insignificant portion, don't you agree? And you still have no data about what even those hundred leaders of yours wanted to actually be done about the system. You don't know if they only wanted lesser renown decay for large guilds, easier leveling for small guilds or if they wanted to get rid of renown decay completely

The only thing you know that an insignificant portion of guild leaders dislike how the system is currently set up, you don't know their reasons for disliking it and you do not know what they would like to be done about it.

That means your poll is completely meaningless to this discussion here because what is being discussed here is not whether or not we should leave the current system as it is.

What is being discussed here is how to change the system, has the reasoning behind the system changed and how to ensure that the system is fair to guilds of all sizes.

But by all means, keep on pointing to your meaningless statistics if it makes you feel better even though they have no relevance to the discussion.



Then why not simply say so instead of trying to dance around and trying to make the system sound like it had completely failed to meet the goals set for it?

I see you still trying to argue - the only argument I will accept, is a forum poll with 100+ leaders responding.

I will not accept your 'numbers' argument.

Sorry about that.

Your arguments are COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS to me.

[eris2323]

You are forcing those of us in small guilds to recruit hundreds of people into our guild. We don't want to do that - not be cause we are elitists or wanting to exclude people - we just want to group with our friends.

It's wrong to take the small guild option away from casual gamers. You are acknowledging what we already know -the new system renders small guilds obsolete and will require us to either recruit massive amounts of people or disband our guild and join a large gulid.

We worked hard to build up our small guild - always taking renown as and reward - taking elxirs from the DDO store. Will that money be refunded since small guilds will be obsolete under the new system? I hope so.

Large guilds never had a choice. It was 'hit the wall, or boot casuals'.

You have a choice. No one is saying you need to recruit hundreds of players. If you are having troubles levelling, you could recruit a few players.

We. Never. Had. A. Choice.

[Dandonk]

I did not see the new system as unfair - it is rewarding active players - without penalizing casual players.

It only rewards active players in large guilds. And does nothing to help casual players in small guilds.

The old system rewards guildwise activity, regardless of size. If nothing else, it's consistent in that.

But that means that large guilds who have a sizeable segment of casual players get stuck in levels somewhere. Just like my own smaller guild (10 active accounts) is stuck where we are, since the two of us who are really active cannot earn enough renown to level further.

But perhaps the best way would be to make the in-game benefits easier to have for ALL guilds. And make the level race open-ended, so people who like that sort of thing can go for it. In that case, the specifics of the decay mechanism wouldn't matter to me - as long as we can all reasonably expect to get the in-game benefits.

[Seikojin]

Why not try doubling the rewards? Leave the decay alone, but increase the values gained per reward; either in larger bonuses for guild size (make a bell curve favoring barely medium sized, high level guilds, since they are the ones seemingly the most impacted), or increase the value/frequency of the drops.

[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?

Eris you asked for math and then ignored the math. Here it is for you again. All people want is a small guild solution that doesn't force every DDO player into a big guild. Again this all about ships and ship buffs. An easy solution is to make those more accessible and I could care less what my level is. Why should small guilds that don't boot casuals suffer.

[eris2323]

Why not try doubling the rewards? Leave the decay alone, but increase the values gained per reward; either in larger bonuses for guild size (make a bell curve favoring barely medium sized, high level guilds, since they are the ones seemingly the most impacted), or increase the value/frequency of the drops.

Nay.

I liked what the devs did, and am waiting with held breath to see what their other changes will be. If they keep the new changes, it will open our guild back up to being completely newbie-friendly (instead of just helping newbies outside the guild, we can have them with us again), and we can run our fun training raids again, all in-house, with an in-house communication system to help us. To me, the new changes were a breath of something new, a chance at freedom; to both grow in levels, as well as new faces. And I am really looking forward to them, to bring some new life into this game.

I see no reason to argue this point. I'd like a dev to re-visit the topic, but after this many arguments back and forth, it'll take them days to get through the thread.

[Sonofmoradin]

Something I am not aware off? We decayed 100+k just now in a level 98 guild. Was there more changes I missed?

[eris2323]

Eris you asked for math and then ignored the math. Here it is for you again. All people want is a small guild solution that doesn't force every DDO player into a big guild. Again this all about ships and ship buffs. An easy solution is to make those more accessible and I could care less what my level is. Why should small guilds that don't boot casuals suffer.

I don't see a problem with large guilds levelling faster; they have more members, after all, and more active players per day.

The only math I will not accept is fake-math - like someones post about number of guilds, vs number of responses to the leader-poll

Someone who had not even read the thread, or they'd know that most of the leaders DID have suggestions as to changes, or specific complaints.

I will not accept fake math; the other math, I don't have a problem with. To me, that is natural - a large guild will level faster. It just makes sense, to me.

Now - what you are forgetting is the fine print... MORE CHANGES ARE IN STORE - perhaps some will address your perceived problems?

[eris2323]

Something I am not aware off? We decayed 100+k just now in a level 98 guild. Was there more changes I missed?

We are back to the old system - some suggest that when they tried to put in mabar and it broke, the changes were reversed at that time.

No word from devs - but they is busy fixing mabar

[Cernunan]

Notice how somebody came into the thread and started to rudely attack everybody who did not agree with him and the entire debate screeched to a halt?

I see what you did there.

[eris2323]

Notice how somebody came into the thread and started to rudely attack everybody who did not agree with him and the entire debate screeched to a halt?

I see what you did there.

Good - meaningless argument clouds the threads when we want dev responses.

If a few circular arguments were ended, great.

Please do note - taking my quotes of context (for instance, when 'completely meaningless' is actually a quote of a quote of the original person) - does tend to look bad....

But thanks for your... contribution...