Guild Renown Changes

[BitkaCK2]

I'm just going to reiterate the thought of abandoning decay all together. I have yet to read a response, in this thread or the petition one, as to why we need it in the first place. So I'm thinking it might be helpful to hear from Vargouille or any other Dev as to what purpose the decay is supposed to serve. The best answer I can gleam is that there seems to be an importance placed on maintaining guild level. I'm still not sure how and why this became such a priority when the main focus should be playing the game with family and friends and others that y'all get along with. I am seriously at a loss as to why this system was put in place. I get the need to achieve thing but farming renown to fight decay and micro-managing guild membership isn't an achievement. It's a war between numbers and why we play the game. A scary foretelling might be along the lines of "The only winning move is not to play."

I want to play the game and not be tied to renown. I as a person and what I can contribute is greater than the renown per week I can generate. Seriously what is the worst that can happen by abandoning decay? That's another question that I have yet seen a salient answer to. The system is flawed from its inception. Slapping bandaids on it won't fix anything. So please, someone tell me why we need it. Is it to prevent 2 member guilds from reaching level 100? Is it so small guilds don't have access to high level ship buffs? Is it because there needs to be a sense of purpose fulfilled with the satisfaction of knowing you have farmed your share of renown for the guild... this week at least... ? Why is it there? If you are worried about 'easy buttons' take a look at the tomes, shroud crafting mats etc available in the DDO store. So all of a sudden more guilds have access to more hookpoints. Let's see, don't they have to spend plat or TP to equip them? Hmmm, more people dumping plat and buying TP... again not seeing the bad here.

Just sayin',
bitkaCK2

[DocBenway]

By creating any mechanic it is being imposed. Trying to flower it as if it is Turbines fault gets you no where as the decision to maximize guild renown over friendships was the choice of the players, no one else.

Now, was it nice for Turbine to design it in such a manner? I don't know of any one that will say "yes, it was nice."
But clearly, the players choose greed over friendships.

So you agree, that without the mechanic, this personal player decision would not be a factor in any guild and thus the system is harmful to guilds a a whole?

Vargouille's last post illustrates exactly what the renown system has done already in the list of goals for changes to avoid.

[Bitzie]

We're all for new ideas and brainstorming solutions (truly, really, not just tossing buzzwords). This particular idea is problematic, because it promotes kicking players from your guild to reduce decay, which is where we were before and a situation we want to avoid.

We are certainly still considering other changes and have never said that the current changes being tested were considered any kind of final solution. We'd love to have more ideas to consider.

Ideas that are more likely to work out are ones that feel fair, promote playing together with people you like and have fun with, and where the system itself isn't promoting who you play with. We don't want to promote any particular guild size. And we don't want incentives for kicking players you enjoy playing with, or for players who might like to come and hang out or play occasionally to feel like they are hurting their guild or harming their friends in any way. If these goals seem wrong, we're willing to hear ideas on that too. This isn't an exhaustive list, but current thinking is leaning us strongly towards including these goals.

thematically speaking - old system smaller guilds of high time playing people had it easier to get to high level - not easy but doable with effort.
old system - large guilds had all but an impossible mountain to climb if they had any sort of casual members

new system - small guilds still have to work their rear ends off to maintain level. Small more casual guilds (even medium guilds) will never ever get higher level.
large guilds - handed it on a platter with a cherry on top (once past a certain size)

it would appear that the large guild size approach is very popular for the majority of players (less so for power gamers etc - a high level guild DOES carry a prestige value - this is obviously now massively diminished /shrug)

potential solution - a typical average guild size is likely to be what now - lets suck on thumb and say 50. Decay is going to be capped for them at a certain value - i have no idea what this is - convert that to a per person decay value (ie over the 50 people) - apply that value per person to all guild sizes.

result will be a more uniform pressure for all guilds (easier) to get to and maintain a specific level irrelevant of size. Sure very large guilds will still benefit more but it wont be as extreme as what we have in place at the moment. Small guilds will move closer to what large guilds are seeing today in terms of decay pressure (lower) but overall decay remains so dead guilds will still lose levels.

Or

just massively reduce the decay formula to achieve similar results - less work.

This allows small and medium sized more casual guild to, over time, achieve a high level as well. A far longer term plan for them than a large guild or a small guild of power gamers but still something achievable for them.

[slarden]

When you look at the guilds above level 98 they are almost always small guilds.

The other thing to consider is how many individual small guilds will it take to match the per player size of a large guild. To argue that a small number of players should progress at the same rate of a guild x times their size without an equitable amount of effort is also be something to address.

I will admit however because of how the renown bonus for small guilds work, casual players continue to be affected and this should be addressed. Changing the guild renown bonus based on size tiers may be a step in the right direction

I've seen this flaw in logic repeated many times in this thread and elsewhere. Just because the only guilds above 90 are small guilds doesn't mean small guilds have an easier time leveling. The typical small guild is below level 50 and below the level of large guilds. The high level small guilds represent far less than 1% of the small guilds and it doesn't make sense to use those as the model for a what small guild is. Small guilds also have casual players which is my most small guilds never even make it to 50.

The bottom line is that decay is ultimately a penalty on the members of a guild. They must earn x amount of renown per day just cover their place in the guild. This is true of small guilds and large guilds. I see no reason for an individual in a small guild to get a penalty that is significantly larger than the penalty of a large guild. As it stands today with the test system, a casual member in a small guild of 6 gets a decay penalty that is 33.33x larger than a casual member in a 200 member large guild. Even with the renown bonus the person in the small guild gets, the penalty is 8x larger than the person in a large guild.

I don't mind that people in small guilds will move slower to level up - that makes sense as they have less people working toward the same renown total and it's always been that way.

However, we are talking about a penalty. If the indvidual casual members of a small guild can't make enough renown to cover their penalty - the guild stays in place or goes down. Many small guilds never reach 60 for that reason. Infilcting a significant penalty ONLY on small guilds does not make sense for the same reasons penalties were reduced for large guilds. It's fine with me if some guilds level up slower than others - it's not ok if we put a penalty in place that is only signifcant for one guild size when one of the stated goals is to not promote a certain guild size.

As has been stated many times - if we think decay is taking fun out of the game - which it is - remove decay or reduce it significantly for guilds of all sizes.

Alternatively, just lower the level requirements for ships and the key amenities by 15 to 20 and then nobody will care about their level as much because the primary benefit of higher levels is augment slots, ships and amenities. Guilds are a social mechanic and not a competitive mechanic. Turn it into a win for Turbine instead of a loss since doing this will result in the sale of astral diamonds for ships. Why keep a mechanic in place that prevents people from buying bigger ships which I think means $ in the door for turbine with astral diamond sales.

[Chaos000]

I've seen this flaw in logic repeated many times in this thread and elsewhere. Just because the only guilds above 90 are small guilds doesn't mean small guilds have an easier time leveling. The typical small guild is below level 50 and below the level of large guilds. The high level small guilds represent far less than 1% of the small guilds and it doesn't make sense to use those as the model for a what small guild is. Small guilds also have casual players which is my most small guilds never even make it to 50.

You're arguing that a player in a guild 8x smaller should have have their work worth the amount of 8x more players.

Until we start seeing even one large guild reaching 97+ under the new system the assertion that the current decay is too low for large guilds doesn't hold water.

If it is true that the only guilds above 90 are small guilds means that it is not possible for a large guild to hit 90+ and only small guilds are able to in a real game world environment.

The bottom line is that decay could be a choice. I suggested in another thread that they should tie in decay based on ship size. Smallest ship has 0 decay, therefore it is the choice of the guild to reduce their ship size until they reach the desired guild level and then start upgrading their ship based on what they feel they can handle. At least then there is a mechanic in-game to allow for the 0 decay that people are currently asking for

[DocBenway]

Until we start seeing even one large guild reaching 97+ under the new system the assertion that the current decay is too low for large guilds doesn't hold water.

I could be misunderstanding, but I think the water was decay being too high to hold in the small guild bucket. Not that it is too low for the large guild one.

Could just be how I read it though.

[slarden]

You're arguing that a player in a guild 8x smaller should have have their work worth the amount of 8x more players.

Until we start seeing even one large guild reaching 97+ under the new system the assertion that the current decay is too low for large guilds doesn't hold water.

If it is true that the only guilds above 90 are small guilds means that it is not possible for a large guild to hit 90+ and only small guilds are able to in a real game world environment.

The bottom line is that decay could be a choice. I suggested in another thread that they should tie in decay based on ship size. Smallest ship has 0 decay, therefore it is the choice of the guild to reduce their ship size until they reach the desired guild level and then start upgrading their ship based on what they feel they can handle. At least then there is a mechanic in-game to allow for the 0 decay that people are currently asking for

Not true, I am arguing that they shouldn't receive an excessively larger penalty it has nothing to do with the leveling up requirements. Leveling up has always been harder for small guilds and that makes sense to me. But it makes no sense that a person in small guilds needs 8x more to level up and should recieve on top of that a penalty 8x larger than a person in a large guild.

The argument doesn't really hold water. The reason small guilds get to high levels is by ensuring that all members have high play time and meet certain standards. They are essentially all hardcore players. There aren't enough hardcore players in the game to form a hardcore large guild. If there were enough people you would see large hardcore gulids that reached 100. The other 99%+ of small guilds also never have a chance to make level 90.

It's like arguing that most professional baseball players are above 6 feet so it's easy to be a professional baseball player if you are above 6 feet. You have to look at the average demographics as well and not look at just the exceptions and high achievers to draw conclusions.

The fact is and continues to be that most small guilds are below the average level of a large guild. They struggle with decay and also need some relief.

Just get rid of decay or reduce it- rather than arbitrarily punish individuals that want to be in a small guild.

[Cernunan]

Until we start seeing even one large guild reaching 97+ under the new system the assertion that the current decay is too low for large guilds doesn't hold water.

If it is true that the only guilds above 90 are small guilds means that it is not possible for a large guild to hit 90+ and only small guilds are able to in a real game world environment.

Again, looking at the numbers of my own server, you can see this is not true.

The ONLY level 100 guild on ghallanda is in fact Dirty Monky, a large guild, the 9th largest guild on the server.
Also

Of the 12 THOUSAND guilds on Ghallanda right now, 10 are in the lvl 90 range.

3 are large guilds( Ravensguard, CC and GRR)
3 are medium (DI,SA,UE)
The other 4 are small.

Quoting inaccurate facts to support your argument does not help validate said argument.

[Missing_Minds]

* I wish I could take credit for this example, but I can't. It was posted in a much earlier thread on this subject. I liked it a lot so I have plagerized it here for you. Perhaps the original poster can reply and take credit for it.

The analagoy does not work. Yours is causing a fight with the only outcome someone being hurt.

What I have stated is that you have the choice of causing hurt to expand your own power fast or working together grow as a group.

So you agree, that without the mechanic, this personal player decision would not be a factor in any guild and thus the system is harmful to guilds a a whole?

You ask a two part question and expect a singular answer. However, my answer remains the same.
With no mechanic, obviously, what "is not" will not factor into guild decisions.
The mechanic does indeed force guilds to make decisions because it is applied to all guilds. Is it harmful? In my opinion it is only harmful if you choose "keeping up with the Jones's", choosing greed and power over friend and fellowship.

I ask you in turn, are these hour long buffs and such worth that much, that you are willing cause hurt and make divisions?

[eris2323]

I find it insulting that small guilds get a bonus; in other words, a player in a small guild is worth MORE than a player in a large guild? Why? Because they exclude people? Because they choose to make a guild with 2 people in it? What makes a small guild so special that it deserves special rules to help them compensate, simply because they choose to have a small guild?

I solo many quests, does this therefore mean I should get extra treasure, to compensate for a group that gets treasure 6 times as fast? No. Should I get 6 times as much experience? Probably not, no. So why should small guilds get a bonus simply because a group can do it faster?

This whole idea goes against everything *I* would look for in a perfect guild system.

[Thayion516]

How does Dirty Monkey handle their members? Is there a kick time for inactivity? Is there a playtime requirement? What do they do that the many other guilds dont do?

[Missing_Minds]

This whole idea goes against everything *I* would look for in a perfect guild system.

What would you do to create a "perfect guild system" then? What is your vision for such?

[eris2323]

What would you do to create a "perfect guild system" then? What is your vision for such?

I have had multiple ideas on this in the past; however, right now - they ain't paying me, so I don't care - all I want is the chance for our large guild to advance again, and to not have to choose between kicking casuals and social players to advance... that problem has been fixed, to me...

*IF* they keep the new system; and I am totally in favor of the new system, and any additional changes they make in the future.

I do not agree that a small guild should get a BONUS to renown, based on just being a small guild though. They should of course have the chance to advance, as they do now... but their current bonus is more than fair, and I do not see why they should get another huge bonus on top of it.

I know some of you enjoy small guilds, but fragmenting the 'game world' into 121345214351521521512 small guilds is stupid, and I dislike it.

Your opinion may vary.

[eris2323]

A small guild gets s bonus because it takes 30x more renown to level up vs. a guild of 200. With the renown bonus they still need to earn 8x more per person to level up.

It's really that simple - it doesn't imply value - it simply reduces the handicap small guilds already have.

I don't agree that you should get a bonus simply for choosing a handicap.

I choose to solo on elite.... sometimes. By your reasoning, I should be getting 6 times the experience, because obviously a group of 6 can finish an elite faster, and I should be getting a bonus to compensate for that...

So let's start a new petition, shall we?

[Thayion516]

I find it insulting that small guilds get a bonus; in other words, a player in a small guild is worth MORE than a player in a large guild? Why? Because they exclude people? Because they choose to make a guild with 2 people in it? What makes a small guild so special that it deserves special rules to help them compensate, simply because they choose to have a small guild?

I solo many quests, does this therefore mean I should get extra treasure, to compensate for a group that gets treasure 6 times as fast? No. Should I get 6 times as much experience? Probably not, no. So why should small guilds get a bonus simply because a group can do it faster?

This whole idea goes against everything *I* would look for in a perfect guild system.

The bonus was set in place to off set the decay.

So if they kill decay. It stands to reason they will kill the Bonus also.

Because a small guild is not better then a large guild or visa vers. No Decay = No Bonus IMO. Just Flat gather renown and level up.

[slarden]

The bonus was set in place to off set the decay.

So if they kill decay. It stands to reason they will kill the Bonus also.

Because a small guild is not better then a large guild or visa vers. No Decay = No Bonus IMO. Just Flat gather renown and level up.

The bonus is applicable for leveling up not just decay.

Under the old system after the bonus was factored in decay was roughly the same per member for guilds of all sizes. So they did factor the bonus into decay under the old system.

If you take decay out of the equation, even with the small guild bonus the indiviudal members of small guilds must still earn much more per member to level up. It makes sense to me that small gulds should have to earn more per person, but I think 8x more makes more sense than 32x more. Making small guilds unviable is not really going to accomplish anything except cause Turbine to lose members.

[Virella]

i honestly think the only way you are going to have everyone satisfied powergamers and casuals alike is to put some kind of tiered affect in that manages decay on a per account level with the decay capped per account at what the account earned that day.

for a lvl 75 guild

so under the old system
a size 10 or less guild had a decay of 5168 per person
20*738.281250*3.5=51679.67
a guild of 40 people had a decay of
50*738.281250*3.5=129199.21875 so a decay of 3230 per person
a guild of 200 people had a decay of
210*738.281250*3.5=542636.71875 so 2713 per person
a guild of 1000 people had a decay of
1010*738.281250*3.5=2609824.21875 so 2609 per person

under the revised system currently in place
10 or less still the 5168 per person
40 is 1291 per person
200 is 258 per person
1000 is 51 per person

under my suggested system

with guild size 10
10 active toons 5168 per person so 51,680 decay
8 active 2 that didn,t earn the 5168, 41,344 decay
with nothing earned by the two that didn,t make it to the per account decay counting to guild lvl
3 active 7 that didn,t earn the 5168, so 15504
with nothing earned by the seven that didn,t make it to the per account decay counting to guild lvl

with guild size 200

100 active 100 that didnt earn the 5168, 516800
with nothing earned by the two that didn,t make it to the per account decay counting to guild lvl

this would make it so casuals dont hurt or help the guild except on days they earn more than what there guild is decaying for the level they are at. this would keep casuals in their guilds, keep current guilds from splitting up to move into massive guilds. guilds would all advance as there is no minimum decay to cause a guild to go negative in decay but only slows down leveling. leave the current cap at 3 levels a day.
essentially it would be putting a guild renown bar for the account that displays how much you have earned that day, would display how much you have to earn before it starts counting towards guild lvl, how long till that bar resets, once it fills all further renown goes straight to leveling. essentially the only ones who could get kick are those that are in a guild close to the char max and ones that have the most amount of time since last logged in.

[Thayion516]

The bonus is applicable for leveling up not just decay.

Under the old system after the bonus was factored in decay was roughly the same per member for guilds of all sizes. So they did factor the bonus into decay under the old system.

If you take decay out of the equation, even with the small guild bonus the indiviudal members of small guilds must still earn much more per member to level up. It makes sense to me that small gulds should have to earn more per person, but I think 8x more makes more sense than 32x more. Making small guilds unviable is not really going to accomplish anything except cause Turbine to lose members.

So u want No Decay AND a Small Guild Bonus? Why should you get perks that other guilds don't just because you choose to exclude people? Excluding people should cause a penalty IMO, not a Bonus.

[slarden]

So u want No Decay AND a Small Guild Bonus? Why should you get perks that other guilds don't just because you choose to exclude people? Excluding people should cause a penalty IMO, not a Bonus.

I think decay should be eliminated or reduced for all guilds.

The small guild bonus still applies because the amount of renown required to level up is the same for guilds of all size. So a guild of 6 needs 33x more renown per member to level up vs a guild of 200. The small guild bonus reduces this handicap so that small guilds only need 8x more renown per member to level up. So yes I think the small guild bonus still makes sense to make small guilds viable.

They may want to change it some so that it doesn't make 6 the magic # for a small guild. Possibly making the small guild bonus 250% from 4 to 15 or something like that rather than creating a peak @ 6.

[DocBenway]

You ask a two part question and expect a singular answer. However, my answer remains the same.
With no mechanic, obviously, what "is not" will not factor into guild decisions.
The mechanic does indeed force guilds to make decisions because it is applied to all guilds. Is it harmful? In my opinion it is only harmful if you choose "keeping up with the Jones's", choosing greed and power over friend and fellowship.

I ask you in turn, are these hour long buffs and such worth that much, that you are willing cause hurt and make divisions?

When 2 parts of a question cannot exist without each other, they cannot have disparate answers. My guild doesn't even know what the Jones's look like, or what "side of the tracks" they live on. Guild buffs exist and are tied to renown. What buffs the Jones's have, doesn't matter to me, except if they are useful in an upcoming quest and the local Jones in the group has invited me to his ship. I don't want to miss the specific to upcoming quest useful one. I don't begrudge Jonsey having it when I'm with him nor when he's in Amrath and I'm in Korthos. I just want to know that someday, maybe before draconic prophecy is fulfilled, we can get them too. Decay still causes artificial roadblocks for anyone 1-9. Meaning a playstyle change is needed to overcome how much you are fined for not playing.

Those, like myself, who answer with a resounding "NO!" to your question that I bolded in the quote, that are not willing to cause hurt and make divisions, are prevented from getting those inherently tied to renown buffs, doo entirely to the mechanics of decay that penalize them harder than anyone else.

You see what the issue is? The people that behaved in the antisocial manner you described benefited under the old system. They no longer do under the test changes. Those that said "Never, No, never!" all along, were penalized for it under the old system and that remains unchanged in the new with the exception that they don't have to behave antisocially to gain artificially. That, I've repeatedly said is Good. Changes to remove the artificial roadblock for sizes above 10 Good.

Minor tweaking to address the existing artificial roadblock for 1-9, would also be Good.