Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

The reason why ninjadwarf_uk is wrong is because there is absolutely nothing in this game that dictates or even hints at how guilds should work, what ideas they should be formed around, what sizes they should be and how they should interact with the community. "A guild" is merely a blank stone tablet that you're free modify to your own desires.

This is where common sense kicks in. Turbine makes the rules. Large guilds provide service to large numbers of Turbine customers. Turbine rewards large guilds with easier advancement.

It's how they get the small number of players that are able to do what it takes to run guilds that help keep their least invested customers here to be willing to go the extra mile to do so. Keeping a small guild of DDO fanatics happy just isn't doing as much for the people who hand out the rewards, so how are they justifying they deserve any sort of bonus for doing so?

[Chaos000]

The percentage of small guilds that are elitist is so small that it shouldn't lead to any generalizations.

Same can be said for mega guilds of 1000 or more accounts. The percentage of large guilds consisting of 1000+ accounts or even those that are 200+ accounts is a really small percentage.

Among the guilds that rank 90+, large guilds do not appear to outnumber and outrank the small guilds under the old system. Because the percentage of guilds 90+ is so small, the generalization that large guilds may have a harder time after a certain rank in comparison to a small guilds should not be mentioned?

[Gremmlynn]

Yes, because when people don't play the way you like, they're mean and deserve to be punished. I understand completely.

No, I don't make the rules here. I just have enough common sense to understand that those who do make the rules are going to make them in a way that most benefits them. Giving the small pool of leaders and self starters a reason to get together with the large pool of general customers would seem to me to be what would benefit them most at this point.

Rewards and punishments are simply the means being used to convince players to play in a manner that's best for those who hand out the rewards and punishments.

[Cernunan]

Same can be said for mega guilds of 1000 or more accounts. The percentage of large guilds consisting of 1000+ accounts or even those that are 200+ accounts is a really small percentage.

Among the guilds that rank 90+, large guilds do not appear to outnumber and outrank the small guilds under the old system. Because the percentage of guilds 90+ is so small, the generalization that large guilds may have a harder time after a certain rank in comparison to a small guilds should not be mentioned?

He in no way was disparaging large guilds. That is not the point of his posts. For some reason people keep trying to misdirect this conversation.

The issue is not that a change has been made to improve the situation for large guilds who are predominately casual who have hit a wall in guild renown due to decay. The change was made that helps overcome the issue large guilds are having.

Nobody is arguing against the change because it is helping people. Honestly, I am glad that you are now having a better time. I support your happiness. Kudos !!

THAT is not the issue that he and I, and others have.

The issue we are having is that this change ONLY helps large guilds. It does not help the vast majority of other guilds, which are small guilds, with guild rankings under 50, which face the same issue with decay the large guilds have. And the fact is that MOST guilds are small guilds with ranks under 50.

The problem is that people are not only narrow focused on the change that ONLY helps them, but at the same time are using the issue in an apparently spiteful way to tell other people the way they play is not only inferior to the way they play, but are somehow trying to say it is detrimental to the game.

I never tell people how they have to play the game they enjoy, and support, and PAY for. I have played this game now for 6 years. For 5 of those years, I ran a large guild. A year ago myself and a group of like minded players left that guild to create a guild for our pleasure. WE did this for our own reasons, weather you can understand those issues, I really could care less. I do not appreciate complete strangers telling me I am am " less valuable" simply because I do not play my game the way you insist I should have to.

I do not make judgements on how valuable to the game YOU are. I would appreciate you having the same respect for me.

[Tshober]

Same can be said for mega guilds of 1000 or more accounts. The percentage of large guilds consisting of 1000+ accounts or even those that are 200+ accounts is a really small percentage.

There are no 1000 account guilds in DDO. None. Zero. Don't exist.

The hard cap on guild size is 1000 characters and inactives count in that. Theoretically you could make a 1000 account guild if there were no alts whatsoever but it is not gonna happen in reality. Most large guilds have less than 250 accounts. Very few will be even close to 500 accounts. Remember all alts and all inactives count in the 1000 character limit.

[slarden]

Same can be said for mega guilds of 1000 or more accounts. The percentage of large guilds consisting of 1000+ accounts or even those that are 200+ accounts is a really small percentage.

Among the guilds that rank 90+, large guilds do not appear to outnumber and outrank the small guilds under the old system. Because the percentage of guilds 90+ is so small, the generalization that large guilds may have a harder time after a certain rank in comparison to a small guilds should not be mentioned?

I have no issues with mega-guilds (which I would say are 200+ accounts) and group with people from those guilds frequently. I get that a large guild can't get to 90 and have no intention of arguing that point. My only ponit is that more typical small guilds will never get to 50 while way less than 1% will get to 90+ so those shouldn't be the example of what a small guild is.

Just because I don't want to be in a mega guild doesn't mean I dislike them. It just doesn't fit my personality. I have always preferred a smaller group of friends that I am closer to rather than being in a group of 200 I barely know,

I also think there is nothing wrong with the 90+ guilds -they are obviously focused and objective driven, but they are far from typical of what a small guild is.

[eris2323]

Hey cool, I'm sig-worthy.

That's gotta be worth turbine points, right?

Devs, hook me up!

[Gremmlynn]

The main problem with this assumption is that it is not true. People in small guilds are the most likely to put up a PUG becasue it's unlikely they have a group for a full party up all the time. Or for that matter, just because the guild is small doesn't mean they always group together.

The percentage of small guilds that are elitist is so small that it shouldn't lead to any generalizations.

The people in small guilds is not the same thing as the small guilds. While the people in small guilds may temporarily help someone looking for a PUG group, so would any other random group of players. The fact that they are in a small guild makes no difference in that situation, unless at the end of the PUG a guild invite is offered.

Unless that small guild has a stated "save X spots for pugs" policy, the fact the people in the guild may pug in no way makes the guild itself an asset to the community as a whole as they would be doing that anyway.

[Gremmlynn]

Plenty, there are channels, pugs and general chat all available and used by large guilds, medium guilds and small guilds.

So, you are saying the only member of a one player guild adds more to the community than they would as an unguilded independent?

[carju1]

I'm sure No1 may help a bit but haven't seen us grow this week. Being in a large open guild it may help us as we have never been over fond of kicking but I think I's rather a much reduced rate of decay (or even no decay), sohow about No.3 reduced rate of decay inthe algorythm.

[theslimshady]

Stop with the fighting. You're making the Halloween Ghost of Happiness cry...it's all right to have opinions that differ from others, no need to attack someone over them. Also, ignoring other people can work wonders.

Let's try to get this thread back on track and focus on feedback about the changes, and/or your constructive criticism/compliments about DDO's guild system.

to get back to point this is the first festival me and my 200 member guild have been able to enjoy without fear of losing a level or two so no matter what thank you for that

[Enoach]

to get back to point this is the first festival me and my 200 member guild have been able to enjoy without fear of losing a level or two so no matter what thank you for that

While the reduced decay is nice, the Large guild I'm a member of is on the border of 70/71. So we are hit by the reduced amount of renown and with fewer people running quests and more running MABAR, we will continue to get 71 and at decay back to 70.

I totally agree that the MABAR or any event period will be a bad sample of how effective the reduced rate is, however, even I can see that a renown hit on gaining only a single level, which is meant to slow leveling so only 3 levels per day can be gained, is going to be a hit on any guild small or large. I could understand it, if it kicked in on the 3rd level but to have it hit right away on the 1st causes a possible continuous loop between levels that in some cases will take a bonus day or entire guild downing elixirs to crash through that ceiling. The good news is that it should only be one week of the test, with the time after being a better sample.

[slarden]

So, you are saying the only member of a one player guild adds more to the community than they would as an unguilded independent?

No, that is not what I said

My point is that whether someone is in no guild, a small guild, medium guild or large guild, they are part of the larger DDO community and many vehicles are available for cooperation besides guild chat, including but not limited to channels, lfms and general chat.

People may prefer to be part of a small guild for one reason, but participate in a pvp party, a channel with one or more purposes and even general chat that can be about anything.

I don't think there is any reason to read into what I say and add complicated assumptions. What I am saying is really simple and I am a simpleton.

[noinfo]

Yes they do, just as much as the only member of a one player guild does. So, how much does that "guild" add to the social structure?

Plenty. Like it or not people are branded by their guilds reputation just as a reputation of individuals create that of the guild. Even 1 player guilds as you like to call them contribute in this way. 1 player may have 20 toons of varous names belonging to his guild. People may not recognise the character name but recognise the guild name therefore may make a decision basing accept/decline based on their past experiences. This is every bit as relevant as those of larger guilds.

At the end of the day, I really don't care what guild levels others are at, small or large because how they choose to run is their business. The move to the current system finally gives larger guilds a break and that is good. People are not going to leave to smaller guilds in a hurry to join larger guilds for many reason nor should they have too. IMO what they are doing is a step in the right direction.

[slarden]

While the reduced decay is nice, the Large guild I'm a member of is on the border of 70/71. So we are hit by the reduced amount of renown and with fewer people running quests and more running MABAR, we will continue to get 71 and at decay back to 70.

I totally agree that the MABAR or any event period will be a bad sample of how effective the reduced rate is, however, even I can see that a renown hit on gaining only a single level, which is meant to slow leveling so only 3 levels per day can be gained, is going to be a hit on any guild small or large. I could understand it, if it kicked in on the 3rd level but to have it hit right away on the 1st causes a possible continuous loop between levels that in some cases will take a bonus day or entire guild downing elixirs to crash through that ceiling. The good news is that it should only be one week of the test, with the time after being a better sample.

It works out well that large guilds don't suffer decay during mabar since the potential of level downgrades was much higher for large guilds during festivals under the old system. I hope the last week is a good test, but I suspect even the week after Mabar is not typical as many people are taking a break after farming the festival for more hours than usual.

on another note, there should a complete decay holiday during festivals since rewown isn't something you get from those.

[Chaos000]

There are no 1000 account guilds in DDO. None. Zero. Don't exist.

The hard cap on guild size is 1000 characters and inactives count in that. Theoretically you could make a 1000 account guild if there were no alts whatsoever but it is not gonna happen in reality. Most large guilds have less than 250 accounts. Very few will be even close to 500 accounts. Remember all alts and all inactives count in the 1000 character limit.

Oh I agree. I was referencing this post:
http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...&postcount=482

While I accept the possibility in theory... I have serious doubts that they exist. It was used as part of a good example of simple math we appeared to not be understanding. I believe at that time you did point out that 1000 account guilds were "a myth."

He in no way was disparaging large guilds. That is not the point of his posts. For some reason people keep trying to misdirect this conversation.

The point that kept being brought up was that we should revert to the old system which was "at least equitable."

Nobody is arguing against the change because it is helping people. Honestly, I am glad that you are now having a better time. I support your happiness. Kudos !!

I was not aware that I am now having a better time.

The issue we are having is that this change ONLY helps large guilds. It does not help the vast majority of other guilds, which are small guilds, with guild rankings under 50, which face the same issue with decay the large guilds have. And the fact is that MOST guilds are small guilds with ranks under 50.

The change takes the size of the guild out of the equation. It helped casual players in large AND small guilds to no longer be factored in the per-account daily decay. Guilds with the largest number of casual players benefited most from this change. To say that this change ONLY helps large guilds would be an inaccurate statement.

The large guilds that no longer qualify for a guild size bonus to their renown no longer have to weigh an opportunity cost of increased renown decay should they choose to expand their numbers. I recognize due to the small guild's reliance on the guild size bonus, it makes sense that they would prefer a lower per day requirement over additional bonuses to renown gained. However, additional bonus to renown gained makes more sense as it rewards the effort to gain renown over a reward to keep the numbers limited for the maximum benefit.

The problem is that people are not only narrow focused on the change that ONLY helps them, but at the same time are using the issue in an apparently spiteful way to tell other people the way they play is not only inferior to the way they play, but are somehow trying to say it is detrimental to the game.

I never tell people how they have to play the game they enjoy, and support, and PAY for. I have played this game now for 6 years. For 5 of those years, I ran a large guild. A year ago myself and a group of like minded players left that guild to create a guild for our pleasure. WE did this for our own reasons, weather you can understand those issues, I really could care less. I do not appreciate complete strangers telling me I am am " less valuable" simply because I do not play my game the way you insist I should have to.

I do not make judgments on how valuable to the game YOU are. I would appreciate you having the same respect for me.

I was not aware that I was making a judgement on how valuable to the game you were. Anybody that supports the game is no less important than anyone else. I know some players that have an active subscription but play once a month, the argument that they are no less deserving to be in a high ranking guild because they don't pull their own weight at least to me (although I understand the logic behind it) seems like an argument intended to detract from someone else's fun.

[Tshober]

It works out well that large guilds don't suffer decay during mabar since the potential of level downgrades was much higher for large guilds during festivals under the old system. I hope the last week is a good test, but I suspect even the week after Mabar is not typical as many people are taking a break after farming the festival for more hours than usual.

on another note, there should a complete decay holiday during festivals since rewown isn't something you get from those.

Last year on the first day of Mabar we lost 1/3 of a level. About the same on the 2nd day. After that it settled down. By the end of Mabar we had lost very close to a full level. CC was worse.

Usually they do a 10% renown bonus the weekend before Mabar or CC. It helps but it is not nearly enough for large guilds to offset the loss from the event. When you are losing 250K+ per day it adds up fast. Any little problem and you are really penalized if you are in a large guild. When they had the glitch with the ddo.com DNS resolution we lost half a level because many of our players could not log in for a weekend but decay kept on truckin.

[Cernunan]

I was not aware that I was making a judgement on how valuable to the game you were. Anybody that supports the game is no less important than anyone else..

At no point did I say I was referring to you

Sorry, but you are less valuable

if you can't get a group of 20 people together, you're not a guild, you're a glorified pug - and you don't really deserve any sort of bonus whatsoever.

Small guilds of a few friends don't add value this way.

Those are what I specifically was referring to.

My point is that if the changes have addressed your guilds particular issues with decay, then state that you are happy, or not with the changes, and please add how changes geared for YOUR guild can be applied.

What you, or anybody else does not have the right is to tell guilds who are still affected by the renown decay issue, that we have no right to give our opinion that these changes did nothing to address the issues that we STILL have to deal with the decay system.
You may not agree with our philosophy on what a guild is That does NOT mean you get to dictate on whether or not we are allowed to participate in the system we have supported for 6 years.

[slarden]

The people in small guilds is not the same thing as the small guilds. While the people in small guilds may temporarily help someone looking for a PUG group, so would any other random group of players. The fact that they are in a small guild makes no difference in that situation, unless at the end of the PUG a guild invite is offered.

Unless that small guild has a stated "save X spots for pugs" policy, the fact the people in the guild may pug in no way makes the guild itself an asset to the community as a whole as they would be doing that anyway.

I respectfully disagree. I see no real basis for that opinion. Absolute statements like that don't really stand up in a world that is mostly grey.

[eris2323]

At no point did I say I was referring to you





Those are what I specifically was referring to.

My point is that if the changes have addressed your guilds particular issues with decay, then state that you are happy, or not with the changes, and please add how changes geared for YOUR guild can be applied.

What you, or anybody else does not have the right is to tell guilds who are still affected by the renown decay issue, that we have no right to give our opinion that these changes did nothing to address the issues that we STILL have to deal with the decay system.
You may not agree with our philosophy on what a guild is That does NOT mean you get to dictate on whether or not we are allowed to participate in the system we have supported for 6 years.

The devs want to know our feelings? We post them.

Sorry you don't like them.... but, well, I support everything I've said.

I don't consider a 'guild' of 6 people to be a guild, I consider it a pug.

I do not think it is fair they should advance even close to a large guild.... however, I do not think they should ever be stone-walled either.

In my mind - it's just not a guild.

It's like that level 100 guild, that exploited the guild event. With 1 guy. I'm sorry.... It's just not a guild.