Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

Well, if that's the case, than it would appear to me that Turbine is only listening to their players that belong to large guilds.

Tiny guilds with less than 10 players, got no change in decay versus the old system. All other guilds with more than 10 players got a decrease in decay with the change. There are more than just large guilds in that range.

[jhadden30]

I'm in a small guild on Orien (10 accounts) of which most of us are pretty active. Now, we are advancing renown wise however its at a terribly slow pace. Meanwhile, I have watched a large guild, also on Orien, gain five levels in thirteen days. Prior to this (temporary?) renown change, the same said guild was hovering back and forth between two levels for most of this year. If this system was fair to all guild sizes and does not promote large guilds than shouldn't my guild be advancing at the same rate?

Egit, Barnabys and Maschine
Members of Mistshadow Mercenaries

Seems like this highly favors large guilds.

[eris2323]

Seems like this highly favors large guilds.

Actually according to the distinctions set by http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown for guild size, this new system highly favors small guilds, medium guilds, and large guilds, and has no change for what is termed 'very small' guilds.

Devs have announced this is the START of the changes - more will likely come with time...

but please. it's not favoring just large guilds. It's favoring everyone who doesn't limit themselves to a 'very small' guilds - including 'small guillds', 'medium guilds', and 'large guilds'

[Tictman]

OK so my guild has 10 players 5 who play together almost daily. Another group of 5 who all play together from time to time, varies 1 to 2 weeks between playing. This works out well for us so we want to keep this way. But and it's a big BUT, we are looking at only gaining about 1 guild lvl a month. Right now we are lvl 46 so it's going to take us 4 months to get a lvl 50 ship. Our goal isn't 100, but we'd like to spend some of our hard earned cash on that lvl 55 ship. At this rate looks like Turbine is gonna have to wait like 7 or 8 months to get that money from us. ( CASH TURBINE CASH LOOK CASH ) The change in renown decay did help it seemed to lower our daily decay about 1k. Any help is good, but (yep another but), watching one of the blind recruit guilds that was stuck going up and down a lvl for most of a year gain 4 lvls in a couple weeks makes us want go out and blind recruit everyone in sight also. We don't want to do that, if the changes to renown decay stay as they are we will do just that. You can say whatever you want about doing that. Seems to me it's the only to advance your guild under this system.

[yawumpus]

Forgotten in all of this is that many lower level elites have become little more than guild reknown checks. The most painfully obvious are kobold shamans. There are two ways to handle elite kobold shamans:

1. Carefully obtain resist electrical pots and/or resist element wands from vendors. Start dodging every time you see the shaman's hands go up (and don't you dare take your eyes off any of them). Make sure you have effective healing on hand (a hireling doesn't cut it) for the inevitable failures. Be in a group that understands the +10% survival bonus isn't a given.

2. Be guild level 59 (or even 29 for resist electrical 20) and faceroll my pwny kobold.

While we are discussing if guild reknown should be based on getting newbies to accept spam offers in the harbor, we should also ask why the quests are built around the assumption that accepting said spam makes the newbie far more powerful, and can now begin to run elites with the same lack of skill that older accounts have been using for quite some time. Note that after level 11, most of this huge gap ends, and much of the bonuses can be had by other means (although as a stacking effect the "other means" get harder and harder to get). The kobolds are just an extreme example as the amount of damage they can do doubled (but since it is forked, both forks get resisted) against those without the guild levels. This was put in place presumably because the high level guilds were already too effectively facerolling the kobolds.

[jhadden30]

Actually according to the distinctions set by http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown for guild size, this new system highly favors small guilds, medium guilds, and large guilds, and has no change for what is termed 'very small' guilds.

Devs have announced this is the START of the changes - more will likely come with time...

but please. it's not favoring just large guilds. It's favoring everyone who doesn't limit themselves to a 'very small' guilds - including 'small guillds', 'medium guilds', and 'large guilds'

What I'm getting at is small, medium and large guilds are still required to get the exact same amount of renown to gain a level. Having more people in a guild means you get more renown. So, a guild with 1000 accounts has to earn the same amount of renown as a guild with 10 accounts. Even if you factor in a small or medium guild bonus, small and medium guilds are still required to get 3-4 times as much renown per day to keep on par with a large guild. If 100 people get 1000 renown per day that equals 100000 renown for that day. Now if 10 people go out and get 1000 renown with a small guild bonus, 1000×2.5= 2500. 2500×10= 25000 renown for that day. Therefore, small guilds still have to gain 4 times as much renown per day to keep up with large guilds. So the reward is greater for. large guilds

[moops]

( reposted from my post thanking turbine that will prob get ignored because it is a possitive post)

We are a guild that goes between small and medium, with a mix of once a week players and powergamers, and a couple who can only sign on once a month. Right now we have 18 active accounts as a few returned to game and we recruited a player. Our guild which had been stuck in the middle of 88 for months, is now about 1/4 thru lvl 89.

We didn't set out to get reknown, we just played the game, at all levels, and have been progressing under the new system.

[Tshober]

What I'm getting at is small, medium and large guilds are still required to get the exact same amount of renown to gain a level. Having more people in a guild means you get more renown. So, a guild with 1000 accounts has to earn the same amount of renown as a guild with 10 accounts. Even if you factor in a small or medium guild bonus, small and medium guilds are still required to get 3-4 times as much renown per day to keep on par with a large guild. If 100 people get 1000 renown per day that equals 100000 renown for that day. Now if 10 people go out and get 1000 renown with a small guild bonus, 1000×2.5= 2500. 2500×10= 25000 renown for that day. Therefore, small guilds still have to gain 4 times as much renown per day to keep up with large guilds. So the reward is greater for. large guilds

So essentially what you are saying if a guild A is capable of earning far more renown per day than guild B is capable of, then guild A must be crippled/penalized/taxed/etc. until it can no longer earn more than guild B. Nevermind that guild A may have spent far more total man-hours gaining all that extra renown, they still must be held back to gaining at the rate of the smaller guild so all that additional work they did must go for nought. Taken to the logical extreme of that policy, all guilds must advance at the same rate and that rate is the rate of a 1-man solo guild because anything else would be "unfair" to Joe Solo in his one-man guild.

I am sorry but I just can't buy into that kind of policy. Having all guilds level at the same speed sounds fair on the surface. But when you think about what is really happening, it really is not fair. That kind of policy says that the work Joe Solo in his one-man guild does is exactly equal to all the work that 100 players do together in a large guild. It's obviously not equal. Not even close. Why should Joe Solo's work count 100 times more than Sally Social's work does in her 100-woman guild? It shouldn't and that is the real problem with saying all guilds should level at the same speed.

Now if Joe Solo is an incredibly smart and hard worker, he might be able to out-earn all of the players in an 8-man guild. And if he does he should level up faster than the 8-man guild. But it does not matter how awesome Joe is, he is not going to be able to out-earn a 100-man guild all working together. Joe chose to go it solo. The players in the 100-man guild all chose to band together to contribute to a greater whole. What does it say if you make that greater whole exactly the same as Joe Solo's one-man guild?

[Tictman]

So essentially what you are saying if a guild A is capable of earning far more renown per day than guild B is capable of, then guild A must be crippled/penalized/taxed/etc. until it can no longer earn more than guild B. Nevermind that guild A may have spent far more total man-hours gaining all that extra renown, they still must be held back to gaining at the rate of the smaller guild so all that additional work they did must go for nought. Taken to the logical extreme of that policy, all guilds must advance at the same rate and that rate is the rate of a 1-man solo guild because anything else would be "unfair" to Joe Solo in his one-man guild.

I am sorry but I just can't buy into that kind of policy. Having all guilds level at the same speed sounds fair on the surface. But when you think about what is really happening, it really is not fair. That kind of policy says that the work Joe Solo in his one-man guild does is exactly equal to all the work that 100 players do together in a large guild. It's obviously not equal. Not even close. Why should Joe Solo's work count 100 times more than Sally Social's work does in her 100-woman guild? It shouldn't and that is the real problem with saying all guilds should level at the same speed.

Now if Joe Solo is an incredibly smart and hard worker, he might be able to out-earn all of the players in an 8-man guild. And if he does he should level up faster than the 8-man guild. But it does not matter how awesome Joe is, he is not going to be able to out-earn a 100-man guild all working together. Joe chose to go it solo. The players in the 100-man guild all chose to band together to contribute to a greater whole. What does it say if you make that greater whole exactly the same as Joe Solo's one-man guild?

First point out to me where he says that a guild should be penalized for earning more renown than another? Second point out to me where he says that all guilds should level at the same speed? Come on now point it out or are you just making that up?

[Tshober]

First point out to me where he says that a guild should be penalized for earning more renown than another? Second point out to me where he says that all guilds should level at the same speed? Come on now point it out or are you just making that up?

On the previous page of this thread.

Here it is so you don't have to scroll up:

Well played Vanshilar. I'm in a small guild on Orien (10 accounts) of which most of us are pretty active. Now, we are advancing renown wise however its at a terribly slow pace. Meanwhile, I have watched a large guild, also on Orien, gain five levels in thirteen days. Prior to this (temporary?) renown change, the same said guild was hovering back and forth between two levels for most of this year. If this system was fair to all guild sizes and does not promote large guilds than shouldn't my guild be advancing at the same rate?

Egit, Barnabys and Maschine
Members of Mistshadow Mercenaries

[jhadden30]

So essentially what you are saying if a guild A is capable of earning far more renown per day than guild B is capable of, then guild A must be crippled/penalized/taxed/etc. until it can no longer earn more than guild B. Nevermind that guild A may have spent far more total man-hours gaining all that extra renown, they still must be held back to gaining at the rate of the smaller guild so all that additional work they did must go for nought.

Nope, i'm not saying that anybody has to be penalized for anything, However, it seems that you are perfectly fine with a small guild getting shafted through the current guild renown system. I'm going to say this again, the more accounts per guild, the less renown that guild is required to get per account VS. Less accounts per guild, the more renown that guild is required to get per account. How does that make since? Shouldn't that be the other way around? Less accounts=less renown per account?

[jhadden30]

You are correct. A guild of 200 received a 90% reduction in decay. A guild of 10 or less received no reduction in decay.

Thanks Slarden for agreeing with me. I knew I wasn't just making stuff up off the top of my head.

[Tshober]

However, it seems that you are perfectly fine with a small guild getting shafted through the current guild renown system.

I am not quite fine with it. I wish they had gone further and eliminated decay entirely, which would benefit all guilds. But even though it did not go as far as I would have liked, it is still a huge, giant leap in the right direction.

I'm going to say this again, the more accounts per guild, the less renown that guild is required to get per account VS. Less accounts per guild, the more renown that guild is required to get per account. How does that make since? Shouldn't that be the other way around? Less accounts=less renown per account?

When you start dividing by number of players, you are no longer comparing guilds, you are comparing players, and averaged out players at that. A guild leveling system should be comparing guilds, not comparing players. If you were going to rank countries by economic power, would you first divide GDP by population and then rank them? Of course not, you would just use plain old GDP to compare them. That is because you are ranking the countires, not the people in the countires. It is exactly the same when you want to compare guilds by renown earned. The proper way to compare them is by total renown earned by each guild.

[jhadden30]

I am not quite fine with it. I wish they had gone further and eliminated decay entirely, which would benefit all guilds. But even though it did not go as far as I would have liked, it is still a huge, giant leap in the right direction.

Sure you're fine with it or you wouldn't be trying to convince me that i am wrong in the first place.

When you start dividing by number of players, you are no longer comparing guilds, you are comparing players, and averaged out players at that. A guild leveling system should be comparing guilds, not comparing players. If you were going to rank countries by economic power, would you first divide GDP by population and then rank them? Of course not, you would just use plain old GDP to compare them. That is because you are ranking the countires, not the people in the countires. It is exactly the same when you want to compare guilds by renown earned. The proper way to compare them is by total renown earned by each guild.

Comparing guilds in fantasy world is absolutely nothing like comparing GDP's in the real world.

[Tshober]

Comparing guilds in fantasy world is absolutely nothing like comparing GDP's in the real world.

Only if you don't care about math and logic.

[Artos_Fabril]

Nope, i'm not saying that anybody has to be penalized for anything, However, it seems that you are perfectly fine with a small guild getting shafted through the current guild renown system. I'm going to say this again, the more accounts per guild, the less renown that guild is required to get per account VS. Less accounts per guild, the more renown that guild is required to get per account. How does that make since? Shouldn't that be the other way around? Less accounts=less renown per account?

No, that doesn't make sense either. A fair system would require the same amount of renown per account.

The question that has been asked several times now, By Sirgog, and Vanshalar most notably, is what Turbine is trying to accomplish with the renown system. If fairness isn't their goal, then all arguments for change to promote fairness are non-productive.

The primary problem with the old system, was that it penalized large guilds more than small guilds for having semi-active members, or members not earning as much renown as they cost. (because small guilds did not see an increase in decay until they passed size 10, but larger guilds increased decay for every member added)

The problem Vanshalar points out with both systems is that small guilds take longer to level up, depending on activity levels, they take orders of magnitude longer to level up. Under the old system, the theoretical trade-off was that they would top-out higher... but might take a decade or more to reach that equilibrium point. Most large guilds had already reached equilibrium, and so they were complaining about decay. Small guilds were rarely significantly impacted in their progress by decay, so they saw slow progress, even though they require far more renown per player to level up.

[slarden]

No, that doesn't make sense either. A fair system would require the same amount of renown per account.

The question that has been asked several times now, By Sirgog, and Vanshalar most notably, is what Turbine is trying to accomplish with the renown system. If fairness isn't their goal, then all arguments for change to promote fairness are non-productive.

The primary problem with the old system, was that it penalized large guilds more than small guilds for having semi-active members, or members not earning as much renown as they cost. (because small guilds did not see an increase in decay until they passed size 10, but larger guilds increased decay for every member added)

The problem Vanshalar points out with both systems is that small guilds take longer to level up, depending on activity levels, they take orders of magnitude longer to level up. Under the old system, the theoretical trade-off was that they would top-out higher... but might take a decade or more to reach that equilibrium point. Most large guilds had already reached equilibrium, and so they were complaining about decay. Small guilds were rarely significantly impacted in their progress by decay, so they saw slow progress, even though they require far more renown per player to level up.

Regardless of what the goals are, fairness should be a factor and is certainly achievable. I don't think the new system is any fairer quite frankly - it is as flawed as the orginal system.

The fact is even under the old system most small guilds were far below the level of a typical large guild. We can't use the highest achieving small guilds as an example of what all small guilds are.

[Tictman]

On the previous page of this thread.

Here it is so you don't have to scroll up:

Well played Vanshilar. I'm in a small guild on Orien (10 accounts) of which most of us are pretty active. Now, we are advancing renown wise however its at a terribly slow pace. Meanwhile, I have watched a large guild, also on Orien, gain five levels in thirteen days. Prior to this (temporary?) renown change, the same said guild was hovering back and forth between two levels for most of this year. If this system was fair to all guild sizes and does not promote large guilds than shouldn't my guild be advancing at the same rate?

Egit, Barnabys and Maschine
Members of Mistshadow Mercenaries

OK so you still cannot point it out in the quote that you had posted prompting my reply. I should have known that you where not referring to the quote you had posted but a different post?

[jhadden30]

Only if you don't care about math and logic.

I see now that you have nothing else to on here you have gone and dropped this award winning line on me. What do you know about math and logic? Larger guilds are highly favored over smaller guilds in every sense and you know it.

[Gremmlynn]

I've shown many - others have also pointed it out. Taking on a player temporarily and then kicking them out under the test system will always result in a net renown gain for a guild. A guild at the 1000 character limit still has an incentive to boot less active players and replace those players with more active players.

With less active, in this case most likely meaning someone who moved on to something else months before.

You want this system "as is" with no accomodation made for small guilds, yet you and others are unable to show how lowering decay for small gulds will result in small guilds booting players. It won't. Lowering decay across the board will ease the pressure on guilds to worry about the play time of casual players.

Because lowering decay for smaller guilds would most likely result in large guilds booting players to take advantage of it. Which is bad for casual players in general.

The new system requires small guilds to have highly active players to cover the decay tax. Large guilds are free to operate as they wish and will eventually get to 100 with no effort, no need to take renown as an end reward and no need for guild elixirs. Large guilds can still get to 100 faster by replacing inactive players with more active players and I am sure some will do that. Small guilds can grow faster by adding players willing to join and then trimming the herd periodically. I am sure some small guilds will do that.

Really? Actually, it will result in my large guild that was stuck at level 46 to eventually get to about level 70 before stalling out again. Of course, with less incentive to move on to guilds that exclude casual players, any active players we pick up might stay with us long enough to boost this now.

I believe Turbine looked at large guilds and the top tier small guilds when making this change. I wish they would look at metrics for all small guilds and not just those that are on the leader boards. My expectations are very low that any change will be made for smll guilds.

Actually, I don't think they looked at any size guild and just looked at the very obvious flaw in their system that gave guilds incentives to exclude a large portion of they player base.

Turbine had an opportunity to implement a system with lowered decay for all guilds that would have greatly benefited all guilds.

I doubt benefiting guilds was really what they were trying to do here anyway. From what changes were made, a better title for this thread would have been "Casual Player Guild Participation Changes" since that was the issue they seem to have been trying to correct.