Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

Yes that is reasonable enough for a medium guild, although with a 24x7 play time window it only means those 8 are active when you play.

We have the same issue with our small guild, most are not active.

I still don't believe there is such a thing as an "unguildable" player. All they have to do is put up an LFM or send out a message and someone will be happy to accept them into a guild. Based on the number of spam invites I've recieve with my backpack characters and characters I made on other servers when the stone of xp was available, nobody is going to have a problem getting into a guild. And that was under the old system.

I'm unusual in playing at pretty much all times during any given week, but even so, there aren't so many that any half competent guild leader wouldn't know who is playing everyday, even in the hours they aren't.

As far as being able to get into a guild. It's true anyone can get into a guild. Mostly because anyone can form a guild. Getting into a guild that actually has a reliable source of people to play with is another story. How many of those invites come from established guilds with leaders that know how the system actually works? How many of those guilds are still around the next time you pop into the server?

[eris2323]

I wish the devs would consider a 'minimum guild size' - below that level, you get no decay, and no renown bonus for size of guild... I'd choose a level of around 10 characters - because to me, that's not a guild, that's a pug... with a couple of backups.

My reasoning? Guilds of one shouldn't exist without massive amounts of work. Massive amounts of work. Events like build-your-guild are exploited to end up with level 100 guilds (with 1 person), how is that fair to the rest of us working hard?

I'd rather have 10 large guilds to choose from that had varying playstyles, than 1213535154134134134134131343 guilds with 2 people in it to wade through before I could find a good home.

I don't believe small guilds should get a bonus, without a minimum amount of commitment and at least a small following (which will still be exploited, as people multibox their guild to whatever level they want - but, I really dislike the idea of a one person guild)

Perhaps the devs could consider a 'pug renown system' for these people that want to play alone, or with 2-6 of their closest friends only, and keep it seperate from the guild renown system.

[Chaos000]

I've already given the examples but I will give them again. A member of a 200 person large guild that was struggling with decay received a 90% reduction in the amount of decay they must cover each day.

When you take all the large guilds into account, a 200 person large guild is such a small percentage that it is hardly a fair example.

The reduction was across the board. The penalty for having casual players (higher decay than renown) in the guild was reduced by making decay not affected by the number of members. It stands to reason, guilds with a larger number of casual players suffering the most under the old system benefited the most under the new system.

But I agree, the only way a small guild can grow if they are unwilling to stop relying on the guild renown bonus and recruit new players is to jettison casual players and replace those players with more active players. Again my suggestion is to implement a choice in game for the rate of decay and renown bonuses. Smallest airship ship 0 decay highest bonus, largest ship at 100% decay 0 bonus. Guilds can upgrade ships when they feel they can handle more decay.

[slarden]

I think I have a fairly simple solution that helps all gulds with decay based on the old system. In all cases the decay is less than or equal to what is proposed in the test system:

The old formula was: (# of accounts +10) for guild size with a min of 20

Proposed
1)change to formula (# of accounts + 10) for guild size with a min of 20 and a max of 100
2)reduce decay table by 80% for all guild levels

For guilds with 90 or more accounts this would match the test method
For guilds with <90 accounts, they would see a reduction in decay such that decay is reduced by 80% for all guilds. In all cases they would get less decay than the test method. As a guild goes over 90 accounts, the decay is reduced even more since the max decay is capped at 90 accounts with an 80% reduction in decay.

I would also propose changing the small guild bonus to 250% in all cases where it is above 250% so that "6" doesn't become the magic # for a guld.

[eris2323]

It's very easy to suggest more work for small guilds when you are in a large guild that won't be impacted. This is really just more attacking of small guilds which is all you've really done in this thread - nothing more -nothing less. If Turbine wishes to stifle small guilds that is their choice, but I think it's a mistake because many people want to group that way. Why make viable options harder when one of the stated goals is to not promote a certain guild size.

I am not attacking anyone, or any guild - I simply feel that small guilds shouldn't be rewarded without a least a bit of commitment from some players. Guilds of one shouldn't exist - or, if they do, they should have to work MUCH harder, for YEARS, to gain levels.

That is simply my opinion - and I am allowed to post my opinion, just as you are.

You on the other hand choose to simply harp on and on and on about what you think is a capital injustice - the recent changes to the guild system. And you just won't even give turbine a chance to release any more information about their changes, you just go on, and on, and on. Because for some reason, this is the end of the world for you - that MANY, MANY people are now no longer being penalized.

They are not a capital injustice. They benefit ALOT of people. MANY, MANY, MANY, people.

And I firmly believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one.

You are given one very simple solution under this new system, even without the upcoming changes the devs have hinted at: RECRUIT MORE.

You refuse to even consider this idea; I am starting to assume that is because not many are willing to play with you

[Dandonk]

You are given one very simple solution under this new system, even without the upcoming changes the devs have hinted at: RECRUIT MORE.

Why do you insist on forcing your play style on others?

I'm happy for the large guilds that their problems have vanished. I wish you would want the same for small guilds.

Any system that limits guild choices is bad, IMO. DDO should be for everyone, not just those conforming to this or that norm.

[slarden]

You are given one very simple solution under this new system, even without the upcoming changes the devs have hinted at: RECRUIT MORE.

You refuse to even consider this idea; I am starting to assume that is because not many are willing to play with you

You are correct on this one point. I am forced to recruit more people into the guild which I do not want to do. Nor do I think I should have to recruit more people to get a fair decay tax relative to larger guilds. I proposed a simple solution that reduces decay by 80% for all gulds below 90 accounts and an even higher percentage for guilds above 90. I hope the devs consider this or some of the other ideas so I am not forced to have a large guild. That would completely take the fun out of the game for me and the folks in my guild.

We want to play the game without getting a larger decay penalty than other guilds and without having to grow our guild Why do we need to add these elements that take the fun out of the game?

[eris2323]

Why do you insist on forcing your play style on others?

I'm happy for the large guilds that their problems have vanished. I wish you would want the same for small guilds.

Any system that limits guild choices is bad, IMO. DDO should be for everyone, not just those conforming to this or that norm.

I am stating my opinion on what is, and is not a guild - it seems to me that some seem to think a guild of 1, or 2, or 3 should be treated equally to a large guild, that is keeping 20-30 players online at any moment in time.

I disagree, entirely. I find a system that rewards small guilds to be the absolute opposite of what a guild system should be.

[Dandonk]

I am stating my opinion on what is, and is not a guild - it seems to me that some seem to think a guild of 1, or 2, or 3 should be treated equally to a large guild, that is keeping 20-30 players online at any moment in time.

I disagree, entirely. I find a system that rewards small guilds to be the absolute opposite of what a guild system should be.

I guess that's the difference between us, then: I don't think forcing others to play my way is good, while you do. OK. I don't think we have much more to talk about, then.

[eris2323]

I guess that's the difference between us, then: I don't think forcing others to play my way is good, while you do. OK. I don't think we have much more to talk about, then.

Players can play however they like - I do not think Turbine should unfairly give a bonus to small guilds simply because they choose to remain small.

I'm talking about a guild bonus, not a player bonus. Perhaps, again, some people need a 'character renown system' and keep that seperate from guild renown.

[Missing_Minds]

What is your point, that humans are generally selfless enough to turn down even a small and very much imaginary perk for the sake of fellowship with others? If so, 1967 want's their fantasy back.

Actually I find humans to be generally selfish (to some degree, and I'm no different) and sheep.
I have my own limits on what I'll allow my greed to do to me and others.

[Enoach]

I've said this before - I'm glad Turbine is starting to look at the system they created and begun making "Active" changes. I'm also very hopeful based on the information we have received from them that this "Test" change is not the end, but just something that they could expedite "NOW".

The numbers do show that on an Account Basis Guilds considered Large Guilds received a sizable reduction in Decay and because of those numbers on a Per-Account basis the spread is thinner. But many of the arguments about this being unfair forget why large guilds were having a struggle. Under the old decay amounts these large guilds on an account numbers basis were not meeting their Decay "Tax" even if the numbers still came out equal to or less than the same level 20 member guilds per-account Decay "Tax". In my opinion it is because Turbine miscalculated what "Active" means and have not produced what they think the Average Guild Members In-Game/Renown Earning Time was expected to be.

Small Guilds got the first change to the Renown system, when they implemented the Small Guild bonus, which based on how small you were would mean that each guild member earned approximately the same as 2 to 3 Guild members of a larger guild. Based on this, the projection was that it helped a 6 Account Guild have the same renown earning potential as an eighteen account guild or a 10 account guild have the same earning potential as a 24 account guild. This in itself was a generous out reach to small guilds. Large guilds members did not bemoan this change as it was seen as fair and reasonable and also allowed for diversity in guilds.

And now, with the test in the reduction of renown for Guilds > 20 Accounts, the first thing we see is how terrible it is because it hurts small guilds of 20 or less accounts. When in fact the change did nothing for small guilds at all as it did not increase or reduce their Total or per account decay.

The real problem here is the change in the reduced renown at Guild Level. This I agree hurts all guild sizes, but hits smaller guilds the hardest - And I'm not just referring to the 20 or Less accounts - but also the 30 Account and less, as they have fewer accounts all hunting renown that is rarer and rarer during the cycle, which if enough renown is not earned to prevent level loss, will just repeat the same problem the next day.

One thing I don't want to see Turbine try to balance is a 6 Active Account Guild being able to gain levels at the same rate as a 200 Active Account Guild with all other things being equal (same percentage of active vs casual etc.) . Balancing a 6 Active Account Guild with it's earning equivalent 18 Account Guild would make better sense.

I look forward to Turbine's next potential change to the Renown System, with high hopes that it does have a mind towards letting Guilds decide their make-up (size/activity level) and not make them choose between their core purpose and gaining levels.

[slarden]

And now, with the test in the reduction of renown for Guilds > 20 Accounts, the first thing we see is how terrible it is because it hurts small guilds of 20 or less accounts. When in fact the change did nothing for small guilds at all as it did not increase or reduce their Total or per account decay.

.

With this argument you could also say if we go back to the old system nobody gets hurt because nothing changed and it was exactly the way it was. I don't think there is anything wrong with providing some balance for small guilds. Small guilds have to earn much renown / account to level up as it is and nobody is suggesting that be changed.

It doesn't make any sense to assess large penalties to small gulids. What is the purpose? To keep all small guilds down when less than 1% of those guild are high achiever guilds? All I ask is for fairness of the penalty aspect - not on the leveling aspect.

The current small guild bonus for 6 is 300% which means it is a multiplier of 4x. So a guild of 6 is earning renown for 24 and not 18. Perhaps this is not as intended but this is how it is working now. Perhaps it should be capped at 200% so the max effect is 3x multiplier. I would prefer that over increased decay because penalties are especially punitive on casual guilds of all sizes. There are many many small casual guilds and most never make it to 60 because of decay. No guilds in this game struggle more with decay and leveling than small casual guilds.

[Enoach]

But they are not done yet. I understand their silence on "what's next" doesn't help. But I believe you have made your point, but have not been open to understand the points of others. And I don't believe that what you quoted is an argument it is a fact of the "Test System".

I do not agree that a 6 Account Guild should be equal to a 200 Account Guild in its abilities to gain Guild levels. However, based on the current renown earning potential it should be equal to an 18 or adjusted based on the other changes that are coming.

Where I have an issue with some of your calculations is that you tend to forget to include the small bonus - Looking at your numbers on your grid using the "Test System" the calculation comes out for every size to be about 10,800 - However, a 6 Person guild currently would need to earn 1/4 of 10,800 to meet the decay. So the numbers on a per person bases would be 450 and not the 1,801 you are proposing. Based on that, it puts you at 90 less renown per Account than a 20 Account Guild per Account.

I understand your passion for your guild, size and core structure. I also want guilds to decide what they are in game and not have to choose between what they want to be and the ability to level by having to "Kick" people.

[slarden]

But they are not done yet. I understand their silence on "what's next" doesn't help. But I believe you have made your point, but have not been open to understand the points of others. And I don't believe that what you quoted is an argument it is a fact of the "Test System".

I do not agree that a 6 Account Guild should be equal to a 200 Account Guild in its abilities to gain Guild levels. However, based on the current renown earning potential it should be equal to an 18 or adjusted based on the other changes that are coming.

Where I have an issue with some of your calculations is that you tend to forget to include the small bonus - Looking at your numbers on your grid using the "Test System" the calculation comes out for every size to be about 10,800 - However, a 6 Person guild currently would need to earn 1/4 of 10,800 to meet the decay. So the numbers on a per person bases would be 450 and not the 1,801 you are proposing. Based on that, it puts you at 90 less renown per Account than a 20 Account Guild per Account.

I understand your passion for your guild, size and core structure. I also want guilds to decide what they are in game and not have to choose between what they want to be and the ability to level by having to "Kick" people.

Well I was behind the initiative of large guilds to reduce decay. Now after supporting them I feel like I am getting kicked in the teeth by big guilds. All of my calculations have included small guild bonus. I didn't in the previous example because it is based off the old system and I even proposed reduction in guild bonus to offset decay reductions.

When it comes to the point that small guilds have no place. I am not open to that, beyond that I have never proposed a single idea that would hurt large guilds or give small guilds an advantage. The only thing I am trying to address is decay because it is punitive. In the example above we still need to earn 8x more than a guild of 200. The only way we can advance as fast as large guilds with that type of penalty is to boot casuals and replace them with more hardcore players. It's making it so that small gulids must be hardcore to have a chance to get to the same level as a large guild. I don't think small gulids should be able to move as fast at leveling up - and they don't right now and never will - but I don't think they should be prevented from leveling up because people think small guilds should be kept down.

[Tshober]

Maybe guild renown bonuses should adjust not per-player but by size tiers?

I am pretty sure that is how small guild bonuses work now.

[Cernunan]

Now after supporting them I feel like I am getting kicked in the teeth by big guilds.

I don't feel that most large guild members are specifically against your feelings. I find the ones so vehemently posting negatively in this thread are those who either do not understand the system and are reacting based off of not knowing the actual facts, or 1 specific poster who seems to be obsessed with trolling and flaming you, and forcing others to either play according to his view or gtfo. Which is ironic because he was screeching the loudest when the shoe was on the other foot before the recent change.

The former mostly are civil enough to get the point then agree to disagree. The later, well post enough flaming posts, and tick tock tick tock.

[eris2323]

I don't feel that most large guild members are specifically against your feelings. I find the ones so vehemently posting negatively in this thread are those who either do not understand the system and are reacting based off of not knowing the actual facts, or 1 specific poster who seems to be obsessed with trolling and flaming you, and forcing others to either play according to his view or gtfo. Which is ironic because he was screeching the loudest when the shoe was on the other foot before the recent change.

The former mostly are civil enough to get the point then agree to disagree. The later, well post enough flaming posts, and tick tock tick tock.

Just because I have an opposing view to you, or him, does not mean I am "trolling".

I am posting my opinion - and yes, if I were 'trolling', turbine mods would silence me.

Sorry you seem to hate me. Good thing all you can do is misquote me in your sig, and you don't actually have any control over the forums.

[Enoach]

I'm sorry you feel you were kicked in the teeth. I want guilds of all sizes to flourish.

By not including the size bonus in your breakdown I believe you did a disservice to the call for balance, mainly because not including the bonus for 6 under the old system gave a false sense on how big the gap actually is.

In this case a 6 person guild at a level were 10,800 is the decay only need to earn 450 face value renown each to meet the 10,800. This actually puts them better off in the old system than even a 200 account guild of the same level. Under the "Test System" it drops them to still being better off than a 20 Active Account Guild. The real plight is the poor 20 Account guild that gets no bonus because of its size, but incurs the same Total Renown "Tax" as guilds smaller than it.

I have proposed myself that renown be based on a monthly active account average - Keeping the same Decay amount used for daily under the old system but instead make it the monthly amount. The average would be based on the average of actually active accounts and in theory reduce renown by at least 1/30th for all. This would also make renown decay something guilds could more easily manage too and allow turbine to utilize the current guild level per day setting renown drop decreases as guilds would be slowed down for a day, but would not have to worry about losing levels until the Monthly decay. This would base the time period using the same measurement used to maintain accounts for a player. It would also mean that the person that just pops in occasionally only adds to that day's daily account activity, making them less costly than they currently are and not make guilds "rage kick" them.

Determining Size Bonus based on Guild size would still need to be worked out as I would hate to add in a possible abuse where a 200 account guild could even for one day get the account size bonus of a 6 account guild.

[Isolani]

If small guilds have it so easy, why don't you all just create a 1 man guild + 5 free accounts and then you can get 50 million renown the easy way. It will only take you several years if you play 16 hours a day.