Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

Example:

L30 Guild, 8 Members;
OLD: 61 (3.375000 * 8+10)
NEW: 68 (3.375000 * 20)

L30 Guild, 6 Members;
OLD: 54 (3.375000 * 6+10)
NEW: 68 (3.375000 * 20)

L30 Guild, 5 Members;
OLD: 51 (3.375000 * 5+10)
NEW: 68 (3.375000 * 20)

Round up where necessary.


Care to show your math to backup your claims?

http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

Guild renown decay formula

The formula for renown decay is a level-based multiplier times an account-based multiplier (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier). The account-based multiplier is the Modified Guild Size + 10. The level-based multiplier can be looked up in the list below.
Note: Minimum Modified Guild Size is 10! Account-based multiplier is therefore ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )

[Chai]

Guilds 10 and below are not getting additional decay under the test system.

This is a really ridiculous argument. You could also argue if we go back to the old system nobody is hurt because they had the same decay as they did previously.

Decay is a penalty inflicted on members of a guild. The punitive decay aspect of the guild system should not be so out of line that a someone has a decay penalty 8x higher than they would if they were in a large guild. I offered a suggested approach to adjust this that doesn't hurt large gulids at all and gives a more even amount of decay relief to all guilds. I don't understand why people in large gulds are so against making the punitive aspect of the system fair when all you have to do is look around in the game and you will see so many small guilds under 60. Why do you want to keep them down?

You have been arguing that smaller guilds have to earn more renown per headcount, which may be true *in some cases*, but not by the level you say it is. Larger guilds have a much higher chance to have less of a percentage active members. My argument still stands that I can show you many guilds with less than 15 people where everyone is active. You likely could not show me even one 100 plus person guild where everyone is active. Your math is still assuming everyone is active in the larger guild, in order to bias it further toward your point, which is still incorrect.

If you still hold true to saying that larger guilds have it so much easier, then we are ENCOURAGED to invite more friends to our guilds. Theres your solution. Decay is only level based and not guild size based. The decay is in fact 1/1 when the guild level is the same, regardless of headcount. No one is being kept down. People can CHOOSE to keep their guild small, but they are now ENCOURAGED to invite more people, rather than the way it was before where people had to choose between growing their guild faster but inviting less people or inviting more friends which meant growing the guild slower.

[Chai]

Yep.

Scrap decay, guild size bonus, and put every guild on equal footing. Your level is a direct representation of how active your members are, no matter the size.

This is what I have been talking about since day 1. The only penalty id place on guilds is for booting people. So a come one come all guild cant recruit harbor noobs, get their guild to 100 then boot everyone but their friends. Other than that, decay is pointless. People could remove themselves and choose not to take any renown, or delete from character screen which would not cost the guild renown either. For some reason Turbine wants to keep the decay in however....

[DocBenway]

Ok, 66 pages and just over the 1300 post mark, and here we have an active in discussion poster, 23 posts in thread, and still a misunderstanding of how decay was calculated.

So I'll quote a fellow I like from 50 posts ago:

The perceived formula did not include the small size of 10 until after February this year. I posted a thread asking why the minimum size 10 existed based on my own numbers and numbers I saw in ongoing renown discussions about too much decay.

That's almost 2 full years of the mostly correct formula was posted before it got adjusted for the minimum size.

That's part of the formula Dev Tracker will not help with as they have never directly addressed why it existed. This thread is helping a lot by clearing things up, and even those who 'knew' the system learned something new in these pages.

So while not a secret, not at all publicized, put in a FAQ, made clear in a subtab of the Guild Social tab for easy access, etc.

Clarity of the system needs work too, but the system itself has to be fixed first.

With a new addendum for today's UI designer on the go. Keep the Store Renown boosts advertisements away from that subtab, faq, etc.

[slarden]

You have been arguing that smaller guilds have to earn more renown per headcount, which may be true *in some cases*, but not by the level you say it is. Larger guilds have a much higher chance to have less of a percentage active members. My argument still stands that I can show you many guilds with less than 15 people where everyone is active. You likely could not show me even one 100 plus person guild where everyone is active. Your math is still assuming everyone is active in the larger guild, in order to bias it further toward your point, which is still incorrect.

If you still hold true to saying that larger guilds have it so much easier, then we are ENCOURAGED to invite more friends to our guilds. Theres your solution. Decay is only level based and not guild size based. The decay is in fact 1/1 when the guild level is the same, regardless of headcount. No one is being kept down. People can CHOOSE to keep their guild small, but they are now ENCOURAGED to invite more people, rather than the way it was before where people had to choose between growing their guild faster but inviting less people or inviting more friends which meant growing the guild slower.

I would agree there are some small guilds where all are active, but this is not the norm. I talk with people from small guilds all the time and they struggle with the same thing our small gulid struggles with - people that were once active that are no longer active or people that never played much at all.

The last paragraph is where your argument really fails. We should not have to grow our guild to advance. Again, I am not talking about the leveling aspect which is fine as is even though my guild requires 8x more renown/account vs. a guild of 200 after factoring in the small guild bonus.

I am talking about the punitive aspect of the guild system - decay. Decay is a penalty on all members of a guild whether active or not so active. I see no reason to apply a puntiive effect that only hurts small guilds.

We do welcome poeple to our guild but we don't do blind invites nor do we want to. We play mostly end game content and those folks are already in guilds. Me and the other active guild member explained to our face to face friends how we can grow our guild and maybe try to make the best of the new reality where big guilds are a must. Their counter-offer was that we should all just take a break from DDO and play star wars knights of the old republic when it goes free to play in the near future. It's actually sounding better than wasting time trying explain the small guild view point when I seriously doubt it's going to make a difference anyhow.

What you and some others refuse to accept is that not all small guilds are like the ones on the leader boards you like to use as an example. We played by the rules and now the system is changing in a way that penalizes those in my guild 8x more than they would be penalized in a large guild with a very high decay tax.

Since when did it become necessary for us to make the development team happy by spamming invites and growing our guild. That is work we don't want. It is going to expose us to alot of drama we don't want. No thanks. We play the game to have fun, not to meet the development team's expectation of what a guild should be.

[theslimshady]

I would agree there are some small guilds where all are active, but this is not the norm. I talk with people from small guilds all the time and they struggle with the same thing our small gulid struggles with - people that were once active that are no longer active or people that never played much at all.

The last paragraph is where your argument really fails. We should not have to grow our guild to advance. Again, I am not talking about the leveling aspect which is fine as is even though my guild requires 8x more renown/account vs. a guild of 200 after factoring in the small guild bonus.

I am talking about the punitive aspect of the guild system - decay. Decay is a penalty on all members of a guild whether active or not so active. I see no reason to apply a puntiive effect that only hurts small guilds.

We do welcome poeple to our guild but we don't do blind invites nor do we want to. We play mostly end game content and those folks are already in guilds. Me and the other active guild member explained to our face to face friends how we can grow our guild and maybe try to make the best of the new reality where big guilds are a must. Their counter-offer was that we should all just take a break from DDO and play star wars knights of the old republic when it goes free to play in the near future. It's actually sounding better than wasting time trying explain the small guild view point when I seriously doubt it's going to make a difference anyhow.

What you and some others refuse to accept is that not all small guilds are like the ones on the leader boards you like to use as an example. We played by the rules and now the system is changing in a way that penalizes those in my guild 8x more than they would be penalized in a large guild with a very high decay tax.

Since when did it become necessary for us to make the development team happy by spamming invites and growing our guild. That is work we don't want. It is going to expose us to alot of drama we don't want. No thanks. We play the game to have fun, not to meet the development team's expectation of what a guild should be.

the problem is that in 1300 plus posts no one but me has put any of there current daily guild renown numbers down by just saying its bad without any kinda of daily or weekly numbers is just speculation

my guess is the reality of this new system is that all guilds are gaining renown now
none in any super amounts where the 3 level penelty kicks in
meduim and large guilds finally are signing on and it not being the buzzkill of the day
the leaderboards i would guess havent changed at all or little

[DocBenway]

my guess is the reality of this new system is that all guilds are gaining renown now

All guilds were gaining renown before. All guilds were decaying renown before. SOME guilds got a large reduction in decay. OTHER guilds did not.

Any numbers I put down are the exact same under the new system as they were the old. This thread started, my guild was level 50. Right now, my guild is level 50. The daily decay we were taxed before the test is the exact same daily decay after the test.

There is no doubt the test changes are good, but they have not lessened the artificial fine on ALL guilds.

[slarden]

Enoach's point is valid that the small guld bonus should be part of the equation. If you multiply # of players * guild bonus it gets you to the effective renown earning power of a guild

Here is a slight tweak that takes this into account. This is based on the old system. In all cases the decay is less than or equal to what is proposed in the test system:



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.

Here is the impact for some various guild sizes. The # in parenthes takes into account the guild bonus and the reduction in renown required by the guild. The proposed system column is what I am proposing as an alternative to the test system. The test system based benefits solely on size - bigger is better.



If the guild bonus curve is flattened so that all guilds size 1-12 get a 200% bonus rather than bell curve centered around 6 members, the decay chart would like this:



Again the goal of this would be to help out small casual guilds that stand in place get the same type of benefit large casual guilds received, but all guilds would benefit relative to the old system. The key is evening out the punitive decay aspect of the guild system and not the leveling aspect.

I am not sure if the devs will even see this, but if they do I hope they consider this system or something similar as an alternative that recognizes that small casual guilds also need some help. I believe small guilds have a place in ddo and am hopeful Turbine believes that also.

It would be great if they lowered ship and amenity requirements by 15-20 levels as well since that is what most people care about more than the level itself.

To theslimshady, here are the daily numbers you requsted. This is from an earlier post. Others have also posted numbers including some detailed charts and graphs earlier in this thread.

[Hendrik]

http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

Guild renown decay formula

The formula for renown decay is a level-based multiplier times an account-based multiplier (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier). The account-based multiplier is the Modified Guild Size + 10. The level-based multiplier can be looked up in the list below.
Note: Minimum Modified Guild Size is 10! Account-based multiplier is therefore ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )

Exactly what I used and will still wait for you to show your math.

[slarden]

Example:

L30 Guild, 8 Members;
OLD: 67.5 (3.375000 * 8+10)
NEW: 67.5 (3.375000 * 20)

L30 Guild, 6 Members;
OLD: 67.5 (3.375000 * 6+10)
NEW: 67.5 (3.375000 * 20)

L30 Guild, 5 Members;
OLD: 67.5 (3.375000 * 5+10)
NEW: 67.5 (3.375000 * 20)

Round up where necessary.


Care to show your math to backup your claims?

I am not entirely sure what you want, but here are the corrections to your math.

L30 Guild, 8 Members;
OLD: 67.5 (3.375000 * (10+10))
NEW: 67.5 (3.375000 * 20)

L30 Guild, 6 Members;
OLD: 67.5 (3.375000 * (10+10))
NEW: 67.5 (3.375000 * 20)

L30 Guild, 5 Members;
OLD: 67.5 (3.375000 * (10+10))
NEW: 67.5 (3.375000 * 20)

[Thayion516]

So the new formula remained after U16? If so, that is encouraging!

[DocBenway]

So the new formula remained after U16? If so, that is encouraging!

I cannot confirm or deny. The test changes did not affect my guild's daily tax.

[theslimshady]

i was not insulting anyone i was pointing out that not many guilds put there own guilds daily or weekly numbers up on the posts they tend to use charts off somewhere else and not there own guilds real numbers

for loot and glory {my guild}
modified account size 202
renown total 21039842
renown gained from sunday morning 130363
under ole system would have decayed 7k with no gain

my point is it is a discussion on what it does to your guild and alot on these posts just speculate what it will or could do

so for my guild it has made the stagnant decay drain go away and a slow progress forward
i was mostly interested in all guilds total renown gains not speculation of doom or korthostylearmies and it seems to me that guilds are for some reason scared to post there daily or weekly numbers

[Tshober]

i was not insulting anyone i was pointing out that not many guilds put there own guilds daily or weekly numbers up on the posts they tend to use charts off somewhere else and not there own guilds real numbers

I figure the devs have access to far more detailed info about all guilds than I have about mine. So I have limited my description of the effects on my guild to general terms. The effects have been very positive. Instead of losing ground rapidly, as we usually do during Mabar, we actually gained ground slightly while Mabar was going. After Mabar ended, we started growing even more rapidly. We have gained a total of 3 levels since the change was initially made. Prior to the change, we would gain a level about once per every 2 or 3 months and during events like Mabar and CC we would lose levels.

[Thayion516]

Ok. We lost 7000ish on decay on a lv 66 guild, 201 active. That confirms that the new formula is still in place after the U16

We have been slowly climbing after Mbar is over. Maybe 1 level a week it looks like.

Slarden, based on your decay, i'm assuming your guild of 8 is lv 70? (10820/20=70) Thats the same decay you had before they changed the formula i'm also assuming?

[Thayion516]

Ok. So how many are actually active in game every day in ur guild? Hours per week? I assume u would know due to you saying u have a very tight group that know each other well.

I personally play about 12-15 hr a week. I prolly pull 40-50k+ renown a week as I play without trying (mainly just taking the 500 and 100 deeds) and no Bonus.

With a SGB would be 150,000+ a week if I was in a small guild.

[Thayion516]

Seems like to me u have 2 work horses and 6 that are casual and do not pull/play much? correct?

Hmm but even "Active" does not denote actual time. The 2 actives on every day? 2 times a week?

[theslimshady]

see now we are getting somewhere

i think renown decay if it stays this way should be tweeked where under 10 accounts get 0 decay so that small and casual guilds dont have to be burdened at all by this

[Thayion516]

Ok.. so u got 2 players staying a guild at Lv 70? Correct? and 6 casuals that contribute little.

So finding 2 more people that have similar good playtimes/gains and INCLUDING them into your guild would help, correct?

10 people still pull 240% additional Bonus. 4 people pulling base 10,000 each a week, quite easy, will equal with bonus will be (4x10,000) = 40,000 + (40,000 x 2.40) cuz this is a stacking bonus = 136,000 a week.

And you will decay at the same 10,805 per day = 7 x 10,805 = 75,635 weekly loss.

Per Week. 136,000(gained) - 75,635 (lost) = 60,365 Gain

The System now inclines you to be INCLUSIVE to 2 more like minded people. This is how a MMO should Work.

And .. I dont see the HUGE disparity you keep talking about. ^^^^ These numbers tell me you are gaining at almost twice the rate you are loosing IF u invited 2 more good players into your guild.

Personally, I would do it in a heart beat.

[Bronko]

That looks like a lot of work for the devs when the players are just going to maximize the gains of their best earners by kicking out the lower earners for a better bonus. The only system that will work for less active players is one where, no matter how little renown they earn, the guild is always better off having them than not having them. Guild leaders are not likely to feel they are better off by having to do a lot of micromanaging, though I'm sure most would be a big fan of the contribution tool to make it easy to calculate which members they would be numerically better off to get rid of.

The problem is that the idea around the renown/player function is what is bad. It would be fine if every player played with the same frequency as every other player, but they don't. This sort of system just makes it so guilds are best off down sizing to just their most active players in order to optimize their renown/player quotient. In other words, it makes it better to have a guild with 20 players in which all are on every day than a guild with 200 players in which 40 are on every day and the simple solution is simply to remove the 180 low earning casuals who lower your bonus and reap the rewards of high earnings with a high bonus with just the 20 actives.

It also stifles recruitment as adding anyone to the guild would likely, at best, just add less a smaller increase than the last than due to the decreased bonus and at worst lower your daily earnings if they didn't play as much as the rest.

Exactly this. +1 for your replies. Well put.

With the removal of the guild size modifier we are indeed seeing growth and I would hazard to guess that most large guilds who were struggling before are also seeing upward movement in their renown. But the issues with how renown/decay are calculated and applied beyond just growth. We are still suffering under an artificial measure imposed but the Devs on what they think a guild should be.