Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

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?

Sorry, he continued the argument in a separate post. Anyone who followed the thread from even a few pages back would have seen it though. If you jump in at the end of the thread and don't do any reading, that's the risk you take.

[Tictman]

Sorry, he continued the argument in a separate post. Anyone who followed the thread from even a few pages back would have seen it though. If you jump in at the end of the thread and don't do any reading, that's the risk you take.

Just for your info I've been following this thread from the beginning. Just admit that what you posted was misleading!

[Tictman]

What amazes me most about this thread is how people from large and small guilds support large guilds getting a reduction in decay. What amazes me even more is that people from large guilds are against giving decay reductions to small guilds unless there are other penalties applies to small guilds.

Yes you've hit the nail on the head!

[Tshober]

Just for your info I've been following this thread from the beginning. Just admit that what you posted was misleading!

There was nothing remotely misleading about it. I'm sure the devs, and everyone else who cared at all about what I was saying, followed it with no problems.

Do we really need to have the discussion side-tracked by the forum quoting etiquette police? I think not so I will refrain from commenting further on this stuff that is not relevent at all to the thread subject.

[Gremmlynn]

Would you care to explain that to the people who were claiming ad nauseum that the original system was forcing, just absolutely forcing them to kill their dear, close, personal friends? Because that's what was being bandied about on the forums as being a justifiable reason to remove renown decay prior to this change. Certainly you'd take the same stance with those people, right?

Yes I would have the same stance. That doesn't mean I like the system Turbine gave us that gave them an incentive to do so.

[jhadden30]

Most everyone on here are still beating around the bush about the fact that these (temporary?) renown changes are heavily favoring larger guilds. Turbine asked for feedback on this and they are getting it. What this change is implying is that the hard work of 10 people is not nearly as important or rewarding as the hard work of 100 or 200 or 1000 people. It is also implying that everybody should just go out, heavily recruit and swell guild numbers so that they can reap the maximum benefits of the renown system, since guild size is (temporarily?) no longer a factor. Here's an idea for all the skeptics:

Drop guild renown decay AND guild renown bonuses

Adjust the amount of renown needed to advance in guild levels based on number of accounts in a guild.

The more accounts a guild has, the more renown they should be required to gain a level.

Mathematically, EVERY guild would need the same amount of renown per account to advance in levels.

It's that simple and this way, everyone's hard work is rewarded equally.

[theslimshady]

lol thanks for derailing this topic again notice how this is nothing but old charts and arguments about what was and what coulds and nothing about anyones internal guilds or gains its almost become silly

so to sum it up small guilds get a little xtra decay that they should not have and this should be corrected as soon as possible large guilds are slowly gaining and the only really mad people are the ones who needed guild level for prestige correct

[Gremmlynn]

I agree. Turbine has been unclear about their goals with the guild renown system.

I think that has been a problem when it comes to most new systems and system changes in that game though and a primary issue with game development for a very long time. Essentially it is unclear that Turbine even has clear and well defined goals for most changes they make.

I've noticed this too.

[slarden]

lol thanks for derailing this topic again notice how this is nothing but old charts and arguments about what was and what coulds and nothing about anyones internal guilds or gains its almost become silly

so to sum it up small guilds get a little xtra decay that they should not have and this should be corrected as soon as possible large guilds are slowly gaining and the only really mad people are the ones who needed guild level for prestige correct

Nope it appears you missed the point entirely. A guild of 10 has significantly more decay/acct than a guild of 200. Many in small guilds would like to see decay reduced fairly for all gulids. It's a quite reasonable and achievable goal. Several small tweaks to the old and new system were suggested.

Turbine continues to be silent on what their goals and plans are.

[theslimshady]

Nope it appears you missed the point entirely. A guild of 10 has significantly more decay than a guild of 200. Many in small guilds would like to see decay reduced fairly for all gulids. It's a quite reasonable and achievable goal. Several small tweaks to the old and new system were suggested.

Turbine continues to be silent on what their goals and plans are.

no it does not matter to me at all about any other guilds and it should not matter to you either you are either bleeding renown or not
you are making this far more complex then it should be how fast you are going to level is and will never be the issue it is only about being able to level or hitting a wall and not and my guess is you are still climbing correct

[Gremmlynn]

I think a guild of 10 or 15 great players who don't want 100 noobs running around should be able to get to and stay at 100. Even if the guild were 2 or 3 people. It should obviously take longer, but it would be cool if it were possible.

This sounds great, unless you are one of those 100 "noobs". Which is where the old system failed as I'm of the belief that for every 10-15 great players that bring activity and structure to a guild there are about 100 "noobs" who just play games for fun and are more likely to play this game if the guild system encourages those 10-15 serious players to include them in their guilds.

[Gremmlynn]

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.

Or maybe they are listening to their players who can't seem to stay in any guild.

[Tshober]

This sounds great, unless you are one of those 100 "noobs". Which is where the old system failed as I'm of the belief that for every 10-15 great players that bring activity and structure to a guild there are about 100 "noobs" who just play games for fun and are more likely to play this game if the guild system encourages those 10-15 serious players to include them in their guilds.

This. Excellent point! +1

[slarden]

This sounds great, unless you are one of those 100 "noobs". Which is where the old system failed as I'm of the belief that for every 10-15 great players that bring activity and structure to a guild there are about 100 "noobs" who just play games for fun and are more likely to play this game if the guild system encourages those 10-15 serious players to include them in their guilds.

You continue to ignore the fact that new players also exist in small guilds. Instead the folks refer to my 8 person guild as a "2 person" guild because 6 of the people are less active and/or casual. Why is that casual and new players don't count unless they are in a big guild?

Why the double standard? Why must the system only help those casual and new players in large guilds and not those casual and new players in small guilds?

The argument continues to make no sense. I think supporting new and casual players is a good goal, but it should do so regardless of guild size. Why must casual players in a small guild of 10 be saddled with 20x more decay than a casual player in a large guild of 200? Even with the small guild bonus that is still a staggeringly high amount of decay the person a small guild is getting compared to the person in a large guild.

[jhadden30]

lol thanks for derailing this topic again notice how this is nothing but old charts and arguments about what was and what coulds and nothing about anyones internal guilds or gains its almost become silly

so to sum it up small guilds get a little xtra decay that they should not have and this should be corrected as soon as possible large guilds are slowly gaining and the only really mad people are the ones who needed guild level for prestige correct

Your welcome and how exactly does this derail the topic? The topic is the guild renown system is it not?

[jhadden30]

no it does not matter to me at all about any other guilds and it should not matter to you either you are either bleeding renown or not
you are making this far more complex then it should be how fast you are going to level is and will never be the issue it is only about being able to level or hitting a wall and not and my guess is you are still climbing correct

If it doesn't matter to you than why comment at all on the subject?

[Gremmlynn]

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?

It makes perfect sense to me considering it is applied to a decay system that is very flawed to begin with.

We have a choice of using your kind of system that encourages the active players who are the glue that holds a guild together to exclude the casual players who, truthfully, bring the least to a guild because the system makes them a liability.

Or what is currently being used that encourages those active players to include the others because, not only are not a liability, but actually add to the guild on the occasions they log in. It also encourages them to recruit new players who, in my experience, are more likely than not to simply fade away never to be seen again when the newness wears off and maybe cause a few more to stay with the game.

What it doesn't encourage is for me a my handful of friends to pretend we are actually a guild, which is where most of the static seems to be coming from.

[slarden]

It makes perfect sense to me considering it is applied to a decay system that is very flawed to begin with.

We have a choice of using your kind of system that encourages the active players who are the glue that holds a guild together to exclude the casual players who, truthfully, bring the least to a guild because the system makes them a liability.

Or what is currently being used that encourages those active players to include the others because, not only are not a liability, but actually add to the guild on the occasions they log in. It also encourages them to recruit new players who, in my experience, are more likely than not to simply fade away never to be seen again when the newness wears off and maybe cause a few more to stay with the game.

What it doesn't encourage is for me a my handful of friends to pretend we are actually a guild, which is where most of the static seems to be coming from.

That doesn't explain why you are against lowering decay for small guilds. Your argument applies to small guilds as much as it does to large guilds.

This is where there is a big difference. Your post shows a disdain for small guilds by using phrases like "pretend we are actually a guild". I really hope Turbine reads these kind of negative comments and understands why some of us don't want to be in guilds that behave like this. You pretend to be helping players but all I've seen is attacks. If you were interested in helping players you wouldn't care what size guild they are in. Your only interest appears to be in helping large guilds like yours.

Again I have to ask. Why are the casual and newer players in my guild not given the same sort of benefits they could get in a large guild? What is the point of trying to force all players in a large guild?

[theslimshady]

If it doesn't matter to you than why comment at all on the subject?

because i was bleeding renown and now i am not so the wall is no longer there and ignoring the devs ? about how it impacts your guild should never have a compare to other guilds in it its about your guild and i still am not clear if you are gaining or losing renown

[jhadden30]

It makes perfect sense to me considering it is applied to a decay system that is very flawed to begin with.

We have a choice of using your kind of system that encourages the active players who are the glue that holds a guild together to exclude the casual players who, truthfully, bring the least to a guild because the system makes them a liability .

But I never said that I wanted to exclude casual players.