Guild Renown Changes

[OpallNotten]

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.

An old argument was for large guilds to either:
1. suck it up and play like they always did without caring about Guild levels/decay
2. boot people because it would help the Guild. *nothing said they had to stop playing with people that were once guildies. Just make it easier on themselves to get Guild levels.

Now people are reversing that on small Guilds....

I have 6 accounts in my Guild. I never wanted a large guild and never will. I shouldn't have to recruit people into my Guild.

[slarden]

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.

I see. So all we have to do is build our guild the way you think it should be done and then our problem is solved. Thank you for your suggestion. I will give that the serious consideration it deserves.

Why is it that it is ok for large guilds to function the way they want, but it's not ok for small guilds to function the way they want without the guild members getting a massive decay tax each day?

Reducing guild renown was the solution for large guilds. Why wouldn't that work for small guilds as well?

[Tshober]

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.

Yeah, I have to agree. The way his guild is structured now, pretty much anytime you log on there would be no one else on and adding a couple more people would not really change that appreciably. Is the difference between 8 players and 10 players really enough that 8 is fun and 10 is intolerable?

[Tshober]

Of course you would agree, because you aren't interested in seeing decay reduced for all guilds, only guilds like your guild.

This statement is absurd. I have been advocating in these forums for the complete removal of renown decay from DDO for nearly as long as you have been a member here. Very few have worked harder toward that goal than I have. The complete removal of renown decay has always been and still is my preferred solution. To say that I am "not interested" in that goal is ridiculous. Go ahead. Do a forum search and try to find someone who has been a stronger advocate of eliminating renown decay than I have over the last few years. Good luck.

[Gremmlynn]

I talked to some folks in large guilds on Sarlona and none are aware of any effort to boot casuals, downsize or stifle recruitment that keeps getting mentioned here. I think people are blowing this out of proportion because they realize it resonated with the devs. While there is clearly some truth to, it's not nearly as widespread as some are making it out to be. The fact is guilds have no tools to measure these things.

While I don't agree with an approach that looks solely by # of accounts, I don't think the approach of the same decay for all guilds regardless of size is any better.

Decay is punitive and should have account size factored in. Guilds should get a break as they get bigger, but the curve is way to steep right now with a heavy punitive effect on small casual guilds. The best solution here is to reduce decay across the board rather than to only favor one guild size. I don't see punishing small guild members with decay as viable strategy. It's only going to discourage people from playing and cause them to find other forms of recreation.

I think the level up mechanism is fine the way it is with small guilds requiring significantly more work per member to level up. The guild bonus helps bring this to a realistic difference.

Try talking to members of high level small guilds. Talking to the people who have already made the choice to act socially rather than in a manner conducive with maximum mechanical advantage isn't likely to get you an anti-social answer.

As for what guilds not having the tools to measure these things. Every qualified guild leader has the only tool needed nestled between their ears. If a guild's leadership doesn't play enough to know this, they really shouldn't expect their guild to get very far anyway.

[Tshober]

The best solution here is to reduce decay across the board rather than to only favor one guild size.

The "one guild size" that got a reduction in renown decay under the new decay system is every single guild with more than 10 players in it. Your argument is more convincing when you are more honest and say that the new decay system fails to help tiny guilds. That is true and it should be addressed.

[Faxe]

This statement is absurd. I have been advocating in these forums for the complete removal of renown decay from DDO for nearly as long as you have been a member here. Very few have worked harder toward that goal than I have. The complete removal of renown decay has always been and still is my preferred solution. To say that I am "not interested" in that goal is ridiculous. Go ahead. Do a forum search and try to find someone who has been a stronger advocate of eliminating renown decay than I have over the last few years. Good luck.

Hehe, no need to search. I recently wasted a day reading over old threads on renowns. Just for kicks, I ran a sample word count of 50 random threads (out of about 80+). The term 'tshober' was at #428 appearing 334 times beating everyone who had ever posted on renown. You can find some interesting terms from the renown threads here: http://pastebin.com/iLKU3aJQ

[Tshober]

Now people are reversing that on small Guilds....

I have 6 accounts in my Guild. I never wanted a large guild and never will. I shouldn't have to recruit people into my Guild.

Why would you have to recruit people if you don't want to? Decay has not changed at all for your guild. You can level up just as fast as you would have before without changing anything at all about your guild. Nothing has changed for you. All that has happened is guilds with more than 10 players have had their decay reduced and the incentives to shun casual/social players have been greatly reduced. Why should you be bothered by this change at all when your guild has not been affected by it?

A much better, and more honest, complaint for you would be to ask "why didn't guilds with less than 10 players also get a break from decay?" That is a good question and it does not begrudge those who have been helped by the new decay system. The devs have said this test is not the end of their review of the renown system. We should try to convince the devs that tiny guilds also deserve to get a break from decay. I would like to see decay removed entirely, so no guilds would be penalized by it.

[Tshober]

Hehe, no need to search. I recently wasted a day reading over old threads on renowns. Just for kicks, I ran a sample word count of 50 random threads (out of about 80+). The term 'tshober' was at #428 appearing 334 times beating everyone who had ever posted on renown. You can find some interesting terms from the renown threads here: http://pastebin.com/iLKU3aJQ

I admit I am passionate about this particular subject. I think it comes from being the leader of a very large guild that has had to fight against decay and against all the pressures to shed our casual/social players for years. When I post on this subject, I feel like I am speaking for all of our members who have worked so hard for so long and gotten basically nowhere. Until very recently, that is. The devs finally agreeing to review the renown system has been a huge victory.

[Gremmlynn]

Why is it that it is ok for large guilds to function the way they want, but it's not ok for small guilds to function the way they want without the guild members getting a massive decay tax each day?

Actually, under the new system, most large guilds will likely not be acting the way they want. They will be acting in the way that is best for the game due to artificial incentives. Most would likely prefer to settle in at a size that allows for a much lower casual to active ratio than the games overall population represents.

From my personal experience, the vast majority of players in this game, and any other game I've played for that matter, simply don't play enough or seriously enough to really contribute more to guilds than they get from being members. That means those that do play enough and seriously enough tend to contribute much more than they get. Human nature being what it is, a good developer will find a way to inflate the value of the first group in order to give those in the second group a reason beyond altruism or the simple logic that keeping the population healthy is necessary for the game to remain up to include them and maximize everyone's satisfaction from the game.

[slarden]

Nothing has changed for you.

This argument doesn't really stand up. If we reverted to the old system we can argue it's fine for large guilds because nothing changed for those guilds.

The fact is that people in my guild now have a decay tax 8x greater than people in large guilds. That is a change. There is a severe inequity that exists now that didn't exist previously.

I don't have a problem with the inequity of the leveling system because there is not a daily activity requirement. Decay is a penalty for people that don't play enough. Only casual players in small guilds are punished under the new system.

I am 100% sure that if small guilds got a decay break and large guilds did not these same people that are saying "nothing has changed for you" would be complaining and much more strongly. Even when large guilds got this massive break we see these folks from large guilds calling for the elimination of the small guild bonus and getting rid of small guilds completely. We wouldn't be reading from people in large guilds that "nothing changed for our large guilds so it's fine" if the situation is reversed.

[Thayion516]

It depends. I was quite busy with work and only played 12 days in a 6 week period during the summer although I usually logged in a bit to chat. We lost 300k or so during that time. We play most days. 1-3 hours during the weeknights and maybe 5-6 during the weekend.

The other active person spends alot of time on beta so we often lose renown when he is testing out the new content on beta. He was in the first party to complete CITW with a severely short-manned team. I think he is going to stop doing that though so we don't lose renown.

Oh Wait. I think i misread this. 2 active people. 1rst part was YOU. and 2nd part was the OTHER player, that usually plays on Lamma beta testing.

So basicly, This guild only has ONE person keeping a lv 70 guild. You are a Soloing a lv 70 guild and u want a Break???

I would like to believe that Turbine would advocate getting more players involved then Soloing a high level guild.

[Tshober]

If the developers believe this they are really out of touch with how the game really functions. People help other players and not guilds. A guild is a chat room, a ship and buffs.

My large guild is very helpful to new players. We help them with advice, with gear, and with people their level to group with. If you really believe exclusive guilds that would never even consider inviting any new players to their guild are more helpful to new players than guilds that actually invite them to join and welcome them to the game, then you are delusional beyond help.

Yes, all guilds have a chat room. The difference between my guild and yours is when someone asks a question in my guild's chat, there are actually people logged on to read the question and answer it. One of the most frequent comments I hear from people who have just joined our guild is "Oh, great you have lots of people logged on. In my old guild no one was ever logged on but me." I can understand how someone who is used to a tiny guild with mostly casual players might view a guild as just "a chat room, a ship and buffs", since most of time when they log in there are no other guild members logged in at all. It is not like that at all in a large guild though. We are a big, crazy family. There are ALWAYS people asking for advice, sharing resources, forming partys or raids, and discussing all aspects of DDO life. That kind of social interaction isn't for everyone, but for many it is a vital part of MMO life.

[slarden]

Oh Wait. I think i misread this. 2 active people. 1rst part was YOU. and 2nd part was the OTHER player, that usually plays on Lamma beta testing.

So basicly, This guild only has ONE person keeping a lv 70 guild. You are a Soloing a lv 70 guild and u want a Break???

I would like to believe that Turbine would advocate getting more players involved then Soloing a high level guild.

No not soloing, when he is off testing beta I tend to play less. When I am busy at work he tends to play less. The only reason we are level 70 is because we focused on making it happen:

1) Almost always taking guild renown as an end reward
2) Taking renown elixirs
3) Making several renown runs each month to make an upward push

So when people in a small casual guild are inactive it's the problem of the other people in the guild, but when people are inactive in a large guild it make those in the large guild noble and helpful? I am sorry but you are wrong.

Perhaps if Turbine takes a look at the comments from the people in large guilds they wil understand why we want to be in a small guild.

If Turbine doesn't want to support a small group of friends playing the game that is their choice. I wanted to express my viewpoint which I did. I don't know if they will read or care about my comments.

[slarden]

My large guild is very helpful to new players. We help them with advice, with gear, and with people their level to group with. If you really believe exclusive guilds that would never even consider inviting any new players to their guild are more helpful to new players than guilds that actually invite them to join and welcome them to the game, then you are delusional beyond help.

Yes, all guilds have a chat room. The difference between my guild and yours is when someone asks a question in my guild's chat, there are actually people logged on to read the question and answer it. One of the most frequent comments I hear from people who have just joined our guild is "Oh, great you have lots of people logged on. In my old guild no one was ever logged on but me." I can understand how someone who is used to a tiny guild with mostly casual players might view a guild as just "a chat room, a ship and buffs", since most of time when they log in there are no other guild members logged in at all. It is not like that at all in a large guild though. We are a big, crazy family. There are ALWAYS people asking for advice, sharing resources, forming partys or raids, and discussing all aspects of DDO life. That kind of social interaction isn't for everyone, but for many it is a vital part of MMO life.

Again what you say about small guilds is absolutely incorrect. My point is that the "guild" is nothing more than a chat room, ship and buffs. The people in the guild are what benefits other people. And the notion that people in small guilds are not helpful is just flat out wrong.

The other point is that people have other better options besides guild chat to get answers to their questions. if someone uses /advice in the marketplace or harbor they will reach many more people than guild chat. If they don't know about /advice someone will explain it when they ask a question in general chat.

Your continued assertions and critisicms of small guilds are just flat-out wrong and ridiculous. So you think a small group of friends don't help each other and don't interact? Really? Really?

We do welcome others into our group but we try to find people that are are a good fit for the group so they feel at home and not out of place. Someone that wants to run in Korthos would be better off joining one of the many small guids or the large guilds where people are running that content. We TR and get to level 10 the same day. It isn't the right guild for someone that is on their first life and a lower level. But it would have been the right guild 2 years ago when that is where we were.

The fact is that almost all people we quest/raid with are already in a guild and there is no purpose in trying to convince someone else to leave their guild to join ours. We can quest with them just fine without anyone changing guilds.

We don't recruit but if someone is looking for a guild and a good fit we welcome them. If that approach doesn't work for you or Turbine that is fine with me. We are not forced to play this game if it doesn't work out for us.

Not everyone likes getting spam guild invites. I don't.

[Gremmlynn]

I am sorry but this is just completely ridiculous. We've taught alot of people in large guilds how to run quests and helped them farm for gear. I run with people from large guilds frequently. They don't know most of the people in their guild and they group with people they like to run with not people from their guild.

If the developers believe this they are really out of touch with how the game really functions. People help other players and not guilds. A guild is a chat room, a ship and buffs. "Solo" players also exist in large guilds. They want the the ship buffs and that is it .

Why is it I always seem people from large guilds asking for help in general chat if they get so much help from their guild? And they get answers from general chat.

/Advice is there for a reason and it has nothing to do with guild size.

That's believable considering that for the last several years Turbine has been giving every GL the incentive to down size and even those that didn't do so tended to lose their most active and experienced members to those guilds that did.

Once this change gets confirmed as staying and it gets a chance to settle in, large guilds in general should start being less dysfunctional.

[Zeez]

We have over 600 active accounts. We are a very large guild and have many active members/accounts. We also invite strangers and help each other out. I cant tell you how many times ive gotten into a PuG just to find out some of them are in my guild. I wouldnt change that for anything. But because of cap and how guild renown was working our leader had to constantly kick out people who hadnt been on in a week or more because of the terrible decay we were experiencing. with this new change we can still invite new people and move up the ranks. I am very pleased with this change and I understand not everyone appreciates it but this i can tell you on behalf of our 600+ members we like it. We were stuck at 60 for over 2 months and are now slowly moving up. Thank you for the changes.

[Dhalgren]

I believe the change is permanent and final based on the original post. The test period is over.

Are you basing this assertion on this:

. . .
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.
. . .

. . . or maybe on this:

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.

. . .?

I agree that some kind of change should be made to help out small guilds, and to be frank, the guild-size-ism going on in this thread (on both sides) gets to be a little childish and ridiculous from time to time. There is nothing inherently superior about people in either kind of guild, and all the disparaging remarks as if there were just make the poster (on either side) look silly.

Big guilds got a break: yay!
Small guilds didn't: boo! But at least they didn't get nerfed: so mini-yay for that, anyway.

[Faxe]

My additional feedbacks after trying to come up with a fairer system:

1. Having any bonus based on size is unfair. I think the bonus is there to help small guilds level up faster initially. Yes, I know some guilds put in tremendous efforts to get to level 100. You can still find charts and data to minimize that effort. But when a tiny guild reaches level 70 and has access to LARGE augment slots, it is very unfair to STILL be getting the small bonuses.

2. Having any formula based on an artificial numbers of account is unfair. For example, modifying the account size to be actual account + 10 is unfair. The phantom 10 accounts is just an artificial number that is unfair to guild of certain sizes.

3. Having any hidden rules/mechanism/complicated formula leads to more unfairness. For example, a person be extremely active for 7 days out of a month always hitting the renown ransack and getting reduced renown without knowing it. While another person can play every four days almost never hitting the reduced renown rate.

4. Decay is just plain unfair to the player. The complicated rules already makes it harder to be fair. C'mon, it's easy to see the small guild bonus is not being applied in a fair way during decay. Players can grow old, develop arthritis/carpla tunnels, and play less for many reasons. That's enough decay in RL already.

My simple suggestions:
1. Apply the bonus based on the level of the guild - not on the account size. This will help both large/small guilds to level up. You can base this on the level when the guild gains access to the tiny, small, medium, and large slots.
I'd give guilds these bonuses:
Level 10 and under 700% bonus. Get’em excited about a new guild for once. Join up everyone, we're under level 10!!!
Level 25 and under gets 450%. Yay, airships and nice bonus still.
Level 45 and under gets 250%. Oh yeah, now we’ve more use out of the ship.
Level 70 and under gets 100% bonus. Lots of benefits and still getting a 100% bonus!
That should make everyone happy

2. Remove artificial numbers/hidden rules from the formula Drop unnecessary numbers that modifies the number of accounts. For example, the recent departure number is just to punish a guild for 14 extra days when an account leaves. Then we have an artificial rule that if a character leaves, some renown is lost unless the character is deleted. It makes no sense because the character left in both cases. It's okay to give us the renown formula, the worst that can happen is that players will test it out and help to improve the system.

3. Hidden. Sorry, I have to hide this awesome suggestion so players cannot explit the system.

4. Remove decay. I think 90% of the players support it. The other 10% will support it once the game designer improves the guild system with more features at even higher guild levels and higher decay.

[Dandonk]

So, any news? Is the test period over yet? Can we have any feedback at all about the concerns of small guilds?