Guild Renown Changes

[Chaos000]

Or maybe a drastic increase in people recruiting, and then kicking people again once they reach the desired level.

Actually yes. The intent is to increase the enjoyment level of all players to result in increased revenue and higher player retention. The number of guilds that kick people out once they reach 100 should be something monitored to see if it will be common in the event the change was made permanent. Mere speculation at this point doesn't help anyone because there is currently no real data to work with.

All we have right now in measurable metrics is the number of guilds at 95-100 and their guild size. If the number of large guilds at 95-100 outnumber the small guilds at 95-100 then the current size bonus will need to be re-evaluated and boosted up.

If with this change increases the number of large guilds at 95-100 over that of the current small guilds at 95-100. That should prove that large guilds are the only ones benefiting from this change. If large guilds are rapidly hitting the 3 level cap after this change, per the concern, that can be measured and addressed. Should large guilds not be affected outside of a slow progression to next level, this also can be measured. If small guilds under a certain size is not progressing in the manner of the guild the next tier up, that can be monitored and addressed.

[eris2323]

The developer commens indicated nothing that will help small guilds and just reiterated that the goal remains the same - basically to help big guilds. I see no reason to hold out hope that small guilds will be given any consideration. If they were, it would have been done before a 2nd implementation.

"We’ll be making additional balance changes that we think you and your guildmates will appreciate, but for now we have applied the changes without downtime."

[Dandonk]

Exactly.

I do not agree it will destroy small guilds though - I think the only small guilds it will DESTROY is power gamer guilds who don't really care about their friends after all, and were only looking for a quick ride to their own high level buffs...

I would not like to see another 'fix' which will destroy large guilds ability to take in casual and social players though.

Thank you for telling me how my guild and my friends are. I wasn't aware we were so evil uber powergamers who care for noone, but you have surely opened my eyes.

And thank you for your informed opinion of small guild mechanics, since you admittedly do not play in one.

[eris2323]

Thank you for telling me how my guild and my friends are. I wasn't aware we were so evil uber powergamers who care for noone, but you have surely opened my eyes.

And thank you for your informed opinion of small guild mechanics, since you admittedly do not play in one.

Oh, I didn't say YOUR guild would destroy itself merging into another... why, are you worried it might happen?

[katz]

ok. seriously guys.. tell me..... EXACTLY... how this will kill small guilds? i wanna hear this. cuz i ain't seein it.

[chrisdinus7]

Actually yes. The intent is to increase the enjoyment level of all players to result in increased revenue and higher player retention. The number of guilds that kick people out once they reach 100 should be something monitored to see if it will be common in the event the change was made permanent. Mere speculation at this point doesn't help anyone because there is currently no real data to work with.

All we have right now in measurable metrics is the number of guilds at 95-100 and their guild size. If the number of large guilds at 95-100 outnumber the small guilds at 95-100 then the current size bonus will need to be re-evaluated and boosted up.

If with this change increases the number of large guilds at 95-100 over that of the current small guilds at 95-100. That should prove that large guilds are the only ones benefiting from this change. If large guilds are rapidly hitting the 3 level cap after this change, per the concern, that can be measured and addressed. Should large guilds not be affected outside of a slow progression to next level, this also can be measured. If small guilds under a certain size is not progressing in the manner of the guild the next tier up, that can be monitored and addressed.

There are more measurable metrics then that. I posted in more detail previously, but for example, it is easy to show that under the old system that more players implied a higher guild level, on the whole (I did some simple analysis on every level 32+ guild on Argo - using MyDDO for the initial data). Overall, even the old system favored large guilds - as there is a positive correlation between character count and guild level. The more characters a guild has, the higher their level.

That said, all guild ought to be able to advance.

[Chaos000]

The developer commens indicated nothing that will help small guilds and just reiterated that the goal remains the same - basically to help big guilds. I see no reason to hold out hope that small guilds will be given any consideration. If they were, it would have been done before a 2nd implementation.

Their test ran short due to Mabar, therefore there wasn't enough data to assess whether the impact it had. Therefore it hasn't had a chance to hit the 2nd implementation.

I don't believe the developer made any comments to the effect that they plan to do nothing to help small guilds. "Their actions prove my point" argument is a bit of a stretch.

By not counting guild size guess what? the casual members in a small guild are not penalized either. Whatever guild had the most casual members will benefit most by this change. The benefit? recruiting casual players is no longer undesirable.

This test needs to play out to determine if the numbers you proposed will play out in a game environment. I agree that a large guild can potentially produce a ridiculous amount of renown IF ALL the members were active and if you measure "per account" taking casual members out of the equation the individual members of the guild potentially have to do less work.

By taking the number of accounts out of the equation with this change, we'll be able to see how much of a bonus small guilds should be receiving for the same level of progression of an average large guild. But we need to see it play out for real numbers to work with.

[Chaos000]

There are more measurable metrics then that. I posted in more detail previously, but for example, it is easy to show that under the old system that more players implied a higher guild level, on the whole (I did some simple analysis on every level 32+ guild on Argo - using MyDDO for the initial data). Overall, even the old system favored large guilds - as there is a positive correlation between character count and guild level. The more characters a guild has, the higher their level.

That said, all guild ought to be able to advance.

I appreciate your work chrisdinus7, and I agree that all guilds ought to be able to advance.

I also believe the old system favored large guilds up to a point. If there is a positive correlation between character count and guild level then there should be (in theory) more large guilds near max level in comparison to small guilds near max level.

If the opposite is true, it's something that needs to be noted in the correlation.

[DocBenway]

We've now re-enabled our temporary adjustments to guild renown, as specified in the first post in this thread:



These changes are anticipated to remain in-game through at least Update 16. We are continuing to look into a bug which may be causing additional decay issues, and will have more information about that when we can. Thank you!

Now how about a reasoning why minimum size for decay existed at all? It has been asked all year, and never so much as a peep as to why. What good is giving 1 person a +150% bonus to renown earned when you decay them at +900%?

Yes this all has to do with the old system, but a lack of information has plagued the system since introduction and developers seem to make no effort to clarify or explain. Everytime is it ambiguous like the:

This coming week all guilds should be seeing decay as if they guild were a size 6 guild from last week. Large guilds of all levels are expected to experience less decay than before (assuming they were high enough to have decay). No guild should see more decay than before, with these current changes we're looking at this week.

Where it seems someone working on the system has no idea about the hard coded minimum size, when confronted with this:

My apologies. I just used 6 as an example size for a small guild.

No acknowledgement of the size minimum, just a statement that "that was an example."

An incorrect example.

Whatever you do with the system, please document and publish it where folks can see and understand it. And make sure the public facing folks dealing with the changes know what's going on. Nothing shatters confidence in a product like a public statement from the manufacturer illustrating they do not actually understand their product.

[chrisdinus7]

Their test ran short due to Mabar, therefore there wasn't enough data to assess whether the impact it had. Therefore it hasn't had a chance to hit the 2nd implementation.

I don't believe the developer made any comments to the effect that they plan to do nothing to help small guilds. "Their actions prove my point" argument is a bit of a stretch.

By not counting guild size guess what? the casual members in a small guild are not penalized either. Whatever guild had the most casual members will benefit most by this change. The benefit? recruiting casual players is no longer undesirable.

This test needs to play out to determine if the numbers you proposed will play out in a game environment. I agree that a large guild can potentially produce a ridiculous amount of renown IF ALL the members were active and if you measure "per account" taking casual members out of the equation the individual members of the guild potentially have to do less work.

By taking the number of accounts out of the equation with this change, we'll be able to see how much of a bonus small guilds should be receiving for the same level of progression of an average large guild. But we need to see it play out for real numbers to work with.

Recruit casuals is now beneficial for large guilds, this is true. But even if they up the small guild bonus, it'd still be risky for a small guild to recruit a casual, since that will reduce their small guild bonus, and could net them a loss of renown production.

And while I agree that real numbers would help calibrate bonuses - there are two caveats. If you say you are testing, then you won't get real numbers - a well-known problem from psychology & sociology research, especially in the case of saying the changes are temporary but modifying your guild can have long term impacts that outlast the test. Secondly, if this isn't the final system, then the calibration would be at best a temporary measure.

[chrisdinus7]

I appreciate your work chrisdinus7, and I agree that all guilds ought to be able to advance.

I also believe the old system favored large guilds up to a point. If there is a positive correlation between character count and guild level then there should be (in theory) more large guilds near max level in comparison to small guilds near max level.

If the opposite is true, it's something that needs to be noted in the correlation.

Agreed. Alas, given the very small number of guilds of any size above 90, it is tough to take a meaningful statistical measurement at that range. Agro, for example, has a mere 12 guilds 90+.

[Vargouille]

As I said, could be bad luck, but I hardly see any renown drops in chests or endrewards once we gained a level. So basically that cut seems a bit too harsh.

Renown drops are reduced by less than half if you've gained one level in the past day, at the original or increased test rates.

If you gained ten times as many renown drops before leveling, that would definitely be beyond what we expect (or ridiculously bad luck). If it feels like it was twice as much before gaining a level, that's roughly in the ballpark, if still somewhat unlucky.

I suggest no cut in renown drops for the first level gained at that day, its very annoying in the highlevel area.

This is a good suggestion which we may look into. We appreciate the positive ideas and new contributions still coming in.

I think it is unfair to address only one part of the problem.

It's not fair. We still feel it's better to address some of the problem now instead of none of the problem. This isn't expected to address all problems immediately. We're sorry some players are still waiting.

I see no reason to make it easier for large guilds and make it harder for small guilds by keeping everything the same for small guilds while adding the new guild reward reduction for 3 days after gaining 1 level.

It's only for one day. As Eladrin stated this reduction has always existed in some form.

We have no goal or agenda to promote specific guild sizes.

[eris2323]

They asked for feedback here. The fact that a small guild problem exists and it was neither acknowledged nor adjusted for a 2nd test is a good indication. It is turbine's game to do with as they please. I will adapt and if it doesn't work out I can find another hobby. I am not a doomsayer and will try my best to enjoy being in a big guild, but it is really hard to get excited about it after we worked so hard on our small guild.

Seems to me you are awfully quick to be giving up your small guild...

You've already posted advertisements looking for mergers?

It doesn't seem like you care all that much about your small guild... within a day of the new test you are looking to give it up... are you the leader? Do your guildies know your plans?

Have fun with your new hobby!

[HunterjWizzard]

There is no fixing renown decay, just get rid of it entirely.

[Dandonk]

It's not fair. We still feel it's better to address some of the problem now instead of none of the problem. This isn't expected to address all problems immediately. We're sorry for those who must wait for later.

We have no goal or agenda to promote specific guild sizes.

Thank you for acknowledging these points.

I will still disagree that it's better to change some of it now, since it introduces other problems, but thank you for responding.

[Dirac]

Basic good game design does not change. A mechanic that has participation without advancement doesn't work. The current adjustment helps large guilds (it helps mine a lot) but there are small guilds that will still be stuck in the mid-levels.

The problem is similar to the problem of challenging players. Some players are much stronger because they play a lot more. thus you need to pitch to a large distribution of player strength to have an effective game. The problem with a guild advancement component, is that the distribution of guilds can be much, much larger than the distribution of characters.

I think you should consider a longevity component to guild renown. A guild should start to gain a small percentage of their current simply for being around and active over time. This works thematically, a guild that survives a long time should become more famous. It also rewards sticking with the game. It is also can be an effective "small guild bonus" for levels when the actual "small guild bonus" isn't large enough to do anything significant. This should be small enough to be irrelevant for large guilds, and zero if the guild is not active.

Finally, you need to have a program to indefinitely increase the level cap. The idea of just having guilds "find" their own level was bad. Letting everyone advance means there has to be levels for them to advance to. Start developing marginal improvements for levels 100-500.

More finally, make guild decay based on activity. Only when a guild effectively stops playing should their renown start to decay.

[Tshober]

We have no goal or agenda to promote specific guild sizes.

Thanks for this clear statement! I was getting pretty tired of explaining that to some of the posters here who seem to think that helping out some guilds dooms other guilds forever.

[Dandonk]

Thanks for this clear statement! I was getting pretty tired of explaining that to some of the posters here who seem to think that helping out some guilds dooms other guilds forever.

We still have no clue whether it's for a month, a year or 3 years.

[gphysalis]

The mechanic or reducing renown after gaining a level is good for preventing guilds from gaining multiple levels in a day, but hurts people who gain levels slowly, and end up falling a level

It would be better if the reduced renown didn't apply unless two levels were gained

[theslimshady]

does super happy dance then backflips thanks ddo powers that be