Guild Renown Changes

[Tictman]

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

Now there's something I don't think anyone here has considered. After all it is hard for casual players to stay in any guild. Lets face it under the old system you pretty much had to boot them no matter what size your guild was. Now you can keep the casual player at little or no loss.

I guess what would put this whole issue to bed would be for Turbine to answer this question. Is this going to be permanent? If so small guilds can go ahead and add members. I think they would if they didn't have to worry about the old system coming back and bit them big time.

I'm not favoring small guilds over large guilds or the other way around here. I'm in a small guild and the change did help us somewhat. At least we don't lose as much as we did daily under the old system. We would gladly add members if we had a definite answer to this question.

Then we could all happily be large guilds with nothing to argue about. LOL

And yes for what it's worth small guilds do have to work much harder for any gain.

[theslimshady]

i wish the real question the devs would had asked was are you gaining renown or bleeding out like under the ole system that whould have made this whole thing less froggy

[Gremmlynn]

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

By that definition, fairness isn't their goal, since that wasn't working for a lot of players. The new definition of fairness seems to not consider guild size at all. Every guild of the same level has the same decay regardless of how many players that guild has. In the interests of fairness, they even pinned the amount to be the same as the absolutely best case in the old system.

This system seems a lot more fair to all the players who were being kicked out of every guild they joined and every guild that refused to kick players due to the fairness of a system that required the same amount of renown per account, regardless of how much time one is willing or able to commit to the game.

Really, neither system is fair to everyone (I doubt such a thing is possible), but I'm a much bigger fan of the one that doesn't leave a large portion of the player base out.

[theslimshady]

If you are saying that you are a casual player than it's players like you that I am standing up for.

what so you are gaining renown

[jhadden30]

what so you are gaining renown

Yes slightly more than we were before.

[theslimshady]

Yes slightly more than we were before.

grats and good for you imagine there was a time that certain guilds no matter what they did did not go forward at all

[jhadden30]

grats and good for you imagine there was a time that certain guilds no matter what they did did not go forward at all

I know, we were one of those guilds along with a lot of other guilds. I'm just saying that small guilds still have to grind out more renown to gain levels compared to larger guilds. So its more beneficial to larger guilds. That's all. I just feel that its promoting everyone to become a large guild even if you would rather just be a smaller group.

[Gremmlynn]

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.

The argument that people in large guilds will start booting members if small guilds get a reduction in decay has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Lowering decay is good for all guilds because it removes the pressure caused when casual players aren't active enough to cover their decay tax.

If Turbine wants to change the guild system from an activity-based system to a purely social system - I am fine with that. But it makes no sense for it remain an activity-based system for guilds of 10 and under while it's a purely social system for guilds of 200. Why should people in small guilds be burdened with this this massive decay tax?

Actually, some of us large guild fanbois have also advocated for the complete removal of decay.

[Gremmlynn]

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.

How is that different from what this change was made to get rid of? Why would any guild leader wanting to gain levels ever invite a casual player into their guild? Why would any active player ever join or stay with a guild that willfully increases the renown they need by having low earning casual members.

I suppose those casual players could form their own guilds, though it would take an awful lot of them for enough of their erratic play schedules to coincide on a regular enough basis to actually play with each other.

[theslimshady]

I know, we were one of those guilds along with a lot of other guilds. I'm just saying that small guilds still have to grind out more renown to gain levels compared to larger guilds. So its more beneficial to larger guilds. That's all. I just feel that its promoting everyone to become a large guild even if you would rather just be a smaller group.

and i agree that small guilds need more attention but by removing the wall of decay bleeding was a brillant first step now at least all can move forward and it becomes about pace of moving forward not going backwards

[Gremmlynn]

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.

You continue to ignore the fact that I'm an advocate for the elimination of decay entirely. Cool idea, but it only works for a fraction of the games player base.

[Gremmlynn]

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?

I'm not against lowering decay for small guilds, as long as it is equally lowered for everyone. What I am against is giving the members who count any reason what so ever to kick the members who really don't count. why should a 20 man guild with a few hundred casuals using their pool have a tougher time than one without? All that does is insure casuals don't get to use a pool.

Which is why I think small guilds are pretending to be guilds. To me it's like someone driving around an empty bus, they are just pretending to be a bus driver.

As for where my interests lie. It's in helping guilds that actually have the critical mass to be useful to their membership. So, in a way I am mostly for helping large guilds and those trying to become large.

As to why casual members in your guild don't have the same benefits they could get in a large guild. There simply isn't enough of you to provide them. the two of you, even with the 6 other casuals are not likely to provide a viable number of people to reliably play with for anyone who you let join. I'd think you'd have figured that out on your own by now.

[Gremmlynn]

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

No, you just wants a system that encourages everyone to do so.

[slarden]

I'm not against lowering decay for small guilds, as long as it is equally lowered for everyone. What I am against is giving the members who count any reason what so ever to kick the members who really don't count. why should a 20 man guild with a few hundred casuals using their pool have a tougher time than one without? All that does is insure casuals don't get to use a pool.

Which is why I think small guilds are pretending to be guilds. To me it's like someone driving around an empty bus, they are just pretending to be a bus driver.

As for where my interests lie. It's in helping guilds that actually have the critical mass to be useful to their membership. So, in a way I am mostly for helping large guilds and those trying to become large.

As to why casual members in your guild don't have the same benefits they could get in a large guild. There simply isn't enough of you to provide them. the two of you, even with the 6 other casuals are not likely to provide a viable number of people to reliably play with for anyone who you let join. I'd think you'd have figured that out on your own by now.

Your argument just continues to show that you are against small guilds like the other people from large guilds that are posting alot. Many people prefer to be in a small group of friends rather than a mega guld of people they don't know. I group with many people from large guilds. There are lfms for quests and raids. There are channels and there is general chat. I like a small guild because I don't like a large group and the drama that comes with it. There is absolutely no reason why I have to be in a large gulid to be social. If Turbine keeps track of these things they can see just how many times I group with people from outside the guild, just as people from large guilds do.

I find this thread very discouraging for several reasons:

1) Turbine is discouraging small guilds after many of us played by the rules and focused on renown - always taking renown as an end reward, taking guild elixirs and at many times choosing quests that give high renown over activities like challenges, festivals or loot runs that drop less renown.
2) Turbine implemented this system without fully communicating it to all players. Turbine knows full well that most people don't use the forums. So rather than posting this change in the release bulletin and inviting people to comment, they just made the change and small gulids would only notice the difference when they see large gulids leveling faster while they are not. Since most of the test period was during Mabar, this wouldn't even be obvious.
3) Turbine said they would keep the changes after the test period if people liked the change. The test period is gone, the changes remain and Turbine just stopped commenting on the issue completely. It confuses me how they will get adequate feedback given how this test was conducted. A handful of people attacking those from small guilds that comment is not evidence that people like the system or that the system is fair.
4) I am happy to see renown lowered for large guilds and believe the same should be done for small guilds. The main folks on this thread from large gulds are advocating against giving small guilds any kind of break and against making any changes at all to the test system. The reasons given are very misleading and flat out wrong. They act like if small guilds get the same decay break - casual players will get booted from guilds left and right. Nonsense.
5) The fact that casual and new players are members of small guilds and even start small guilds has been completely ignored.

The other highly active person in my guild is frustrated and doesn't see a point to commenting. He is just off playing Star Wars and looking into Guild Wars. My expectations are fairly low, but I am hoping that Turbine will at least state what they intend to do so I can decide what to do.

Turbine had a chance to turn this into a win for all guilds and Turbine. It didn't happen. They said other changes may be coming, but the silence after the test period ended doesn't give any indication that will happen.

[Gremmlynn]

Your argument just continues to show that you are against small guilds like the other people from large guilds that are posting alot. Many people prefer to be in a small group of friends rather than a mega guld of people they don't know. I group with many people from large guilds. There are lfms for quests and raids. There are channels and there is general chat. I like a small guild because I don't like a large group and the drama that comes with it. There is absolutely no reason why I have to be in a large gulid to be social. If Turbine keeps track of these things they can see just how many times I group with people from outside the guild, just as people from large guilds do.

I agree with you, there is absolutely no reason you should have to be in a large guild to be social. That said there is absolutely no reason you should have to step outside the Rusty Nail or Wayward Lobster (depending on tastes) to play DDO. It's just that doing any of those things will likely limit what you can accomplish in the game.

I have nothing against small guilds really. I just don't think those who run small guilds are doing what it takes to earn high guild levels. Just as those who RP in the Nail or PvP in the Lobster aren't doing what it takes to earn character levels.

As far as drama goes. Any guild has only as much drama as those who make and enforce the rules are willing to tolerate. What's so hard to figure out there. Make a scene and you get tossed out.

I'm sorry, but you just come off to me as not wanting to actually have to lead, administer or even just be a rank and file member of a guild that operates at a high level, yet you want all the benefits of a high level guild.

Want that big ship? Go out and convince some people to join your guild, help them when necessary and motivate them to play. Then you will be earning that high level ship IMO.

[eris2323]

I agree with you, there is absolutely no reason you should have to be in a large guild to be social. That said there is absolutely no reason you should have to step outside the Rusty Nail or Wayward Lobster (depending on tastes) to play DDO. It's just that doing any of those things will likely limit what you can accomplish in the game.

I have nothing against small guilds really. I just don't think those who run small guilds are doing what it takes to earn high guild levels. Just as those who RP in the Nail or PvP in the Lobster aren't doing what it takes to earn character levels.

As far as drama goes. Any guild has only as much drama as those who make and enforce the rules are willing to tolerate. What's so hard to figure out there. Make a scene and you get tossed out.

I'm sorry, but you just come off to me as not wanting to actually have to lead, administer or even just be a rank and file member of a guild that operates at a high level, yet you want all the benefits of a high level guild.

Want that big ship? Go out and convince some people to join your guild, help them when necessary and motivate them to play. Then you will be earning that high level ship IMO.

Pretty much agree with all of this.... kind of sick of hearing the same 1 person continuously complaining that his small guild of 2 active players is getting a raw deal.

Go recruit. Get some people active. Help your game; instead of continuously whining about how you are getting a raw deal, while the rest of your friends convince you to go play other games.... or just go play those other games, since you refuse to make new friends here...

Why should DDO pander to your 'guild' of 2 active players?

[Tshober]

As to why casual members in your guild don't have the same benefits they could get in a large guild. There simply isn't enough of you to provide them. the two of you, even with the 6 other casuals are not likely to provide a viable number of people to reliably play with for anyone who you let join. I'd think you'd have figured that out on your own by now.

The guild he describes has to be one of the most dysfunctional guilds I can imagine. He has 1 active member, and another member he claims is active, but he also claims is mostly off playing Star Wars. All the rest, 6 of them, are either very casual or inactive and are also preparing to head off to Star Wars. Think about it. When someone logs on in a guild like that, the odds of even one other person being logged on has to be very small. And yet this tiny, totally dysfuncional, guild is level 70 and still advancing! My guild has probably 30 times as many active members that are dedicated to DDO and we could not get past level 61 in the old decay system. Just goes to show you what was being favored in the old decay system.

This has been an eye-opening thread for me. I fully expected to see the power gamer crowd be opposed to the decay change, and they have made a few posts, but by far the most vocal opponents of it have been tiny guilds that were unaffected by it. The most disappointing thing about that is, the most vocal of them have attacked everyone who defends the decay change, even when most of us have stated clearly that we would like to see decay reduced for all guilds, including tiny guilds. Some of us have been advocating for that for many, many months and still we are attacked because we defend the decay change. I'm not sure what to make of that.

I wish I had better data about the make-up of these tiny guilds. How many of them are recent start-ups? How many are really just 1-man guilds with secondary accounts? How many even have 1 active player? How many are power gamers taking advantage of the optimal guild size for reaching level 100 under the old decay system? How many are failed larger guilds that are being maintained by a few surviving members? How many are simply unable to hold on to members, even though they try? Hopefully the devs do have such data and can give their arguments the appropriate weight.

[theslimshady]

again i feel the idea that whats right or the wrong guild really isnt a issue nor is the idea of how much renown was a positive gain but more so about if guilds are climbing and not being walled to a point of only breaking even or backwards

[eris2323]

On a totally unrelated note, I feel that I should be able to become a casual player, and yet still pack on the past lives.

Turbine, please consider making it so casual players gain 10x the exp if they only log in once a week.

I feel this will allow me, as a casual player, to compete against the power gamers.

Oh, also, I want 10x the chance of rare treasure, since I can only play once a week.

Okay.. it's not so unrelated... but this is what you sound like to me.

[Tshober]

On a totally unrelated note, I feel that I should be able to become a casual player, and yet still pack on the past lives.

Turbine, please consider making it so casual players gain 10x the exp if they only log in once a week.

I feel this will allow me, as a casual player, to compete against the power gamers.

Oh, also, I want 10x the chance of rare treasure, since I can only play once a week.

Okay.. it's not so unrelated... but this is what you sound like to me.

LOL. Be careful. Some people have a hard time recognizing sarcasm when they read it.