Guild Renown Changes

[jhadden30]

so it has nothing to do with hitting renown walls or decaying levels or kicking inactive accounts only about how you fair against every one else and if you cant level as fast as everyone else its a doomed system seems a bit biased to me as a large guild we have never advocated fast leveling only the abilty to do so period

Nope, I have already stated that this system is ridiculous and needs to be scrapped completely. Why favor one group over another? I posted a solution on the last page, you are welcome to read it and speak your opinion on the matter.

[jhadden30]

Here's a solution: why not just dissolve guild levels and sizes and just let everyone pay for ships and buffs with turbine points or platinum or even favor for the matter? That would stop making it a gigantic competition and bragging rights showdown. This way we could all get back to playing and having fun which is what we're supposed to be doing in the first place.

Here's my idea again. This game needs to be fun, much like the book version was and still is. It shouldn't be a contest over who's is bigger and better.

[theslimshady]

Yawumpus, as promised here is the chart that shows small guilds did actually get a benefit on decay/account under the old system because the math was oversimplified. This is a very simple proposal that fixes the old system with a slight change in formula and lowers decay by 80% for most guilds. For gulids 90 and above it matches the test model. For guilds below level 90 they get some benefit so the decay differences aren't so outrageous. You can see the unfair advantage small gulids got regarding decay in the first column (parentheses). The # in parentheses shows the renown required to cover decay when factoring in the small guild bonus. Large guilds were correct that decay was unfair to large guilds - nobody ever bothered to do the math to prove it.

we decided most of us hated the old system and needed a change and so anything with the base format of the ole renown system should be scrapped the idea that guilds should hit any kinda renown wall is the real issue and everything proposed off that should be disregarded the graphs and charts all thou impressive does not add in humanity to the math if you have a baby get sick have to go away to jail whatever you or your guild under any system should not be bleed out to death and preposing anything with a system based on activity does that

[Gremmlynn]

Here is another proposal: 50+ player guilds get 0 renown bonus currently so… each player = 2% of the total decay. (for example guild of a single person = 2% total decay (i.e. -98% = virtually no loss at low levels), guild of 6 = 12% total decay, guild of 25 = 50%... capping out at 100%) The benefit of recruiting more than 50 players will be the potential of a higher rate of total renown gain (in-theory) and no disincentive to stop recruiting past 50 players.

Under this proposed system... small guilds will no longer have any issue progressing to the next level and decay will only be an issue for guilds with long periods of inactivity. Yes guilds that have numbers significantly larger than 50 will *still*be favored under this system (theoretical potential will indicate that they would pump out seemingly ridiculous numbers). HOWEVER. The argument will no longer be about whether or not small guilds can progress without adding additional members. It will be whether or not guilds larger than 50 could reasonably suffer a higher decay tax without needing to boot casual players in order to progress.

No guilds wouldn't have a disincentive to stop recruiting past 50. They would just have a disincentive to recruit casual players at all. As long as there is any cost, be it an actual cost or the loss of a bonus, for adding players it will always cause guilds to make a judgment call as to whether it is a net gain to add or kick a player. This is the whole reason the change was made and the whole reason it is well worth putting guilds that choose not to be part of the solution at a relative disadvantage to those that don't.

[theslimshady]

Did you even read it? Large guilds get the same exact decay reduction under the proposed system as they do under the test system. The only difference is that guild below 90 also get a benfit that more closely matches the large guild benefit - but it is not as good.

The bottom line is that you don't want small guilds to get any sort of decay reduction.

not true i want no decay for guilds under 12 members the horserace was over along time ago the prestige was already rewarded the leaderboards dont matter small guilds should have no decay based on humanity issue and having to not play the game therefor they should be able to pick up where they left off when they return to the game and not feel burden by some tax of renown
the seperate issue of should small guilds get as much renown as a large guild is a entire different aurgument imo and should be addressed as such this change was about large mega guilds having real issues with bleeding out levels and going backwards people quitting game or guilds over it kicking inactives to fill spots to try and keep up with that same renown tax

[Gremmlynn]

so it has nothing to do with hitting renown walls or decaying levels or kicking inactive accounts only about how you fair against every one else and if you cant level as fast as everyone else its a doomed system seems a bit biased to me as a large guild we have never advocated fast leveling only the abilty to do so period

Hell I've never even worried about hitting that wall except that it causes the members that log in to play to seek greener pastures rather than be there to keep the members that log in to see if there is anyone to play with from turning around and logging back off...until they give up on even doing that.

[Gremmlynn]

Yawumpus, as promised here is the chart that shows small guilds did actually get a benefit on decay/account under the old system because the math was oversimplified. This is a very simple proposal that fixes the old system with a slight change in formula and lowers decay by 80% for most guilds. For gulids 90 and above it matches the test model. For guilds below level 90 they get some benefit so the decay differences aren't so outrageous. You can see the unfair advantage small gulids got regarding decay in the first column (parentheses). The # in parentheses shows the renown required to cover decay when factoring in the small guild bonus. Large guilds were correct that decay was unfair to large guilds - nobody ever bothered to do the math to prove it.

It also recognizes that large guilds do have a harder time with renown and thus does favor those guilds slightly as it should.

The problem is that it still favors a guild with 10 players earning X renown over a guild with 10 players earning X renown and 50 others averaging X/10 renown. So it will still be better to be small and extremely active. Slightly favoring large guilds just helps those players that are slightly less active to a smaller degree than what their guild is favored.

[Tshober]

The bottom line is that you don't want small guilds to get any sort of decay reduction.

No, as I have said too freaking many times, I support removing decay entirely.

I do no want to go back to the old decay system.

I do no want to go back to the old decay system and make minor adjustments.

I am okay with making minor adjustments, just not with going back to the old system first.

The old decay system sucked way too much for me to ever support going back to it.

If the devs elect to go back to the old decay system, I will consider it a defeat for me, my guild, and DDO.

[jhadden30]

No, as I have said too freaking many times, I support removing decay entirely.

The old decay system sucked way too much for me to ever support going back to it.

If the devs elect to go back to the old decay system, I will consider it a defeat for me, my guild, and DDO.

You are absolutely correct on this one. How would you feel if the entire system was scrapped? Guilds would still exist just without all the fuss.

[slarden]

The problem is that it still favors a guild with 10 players earning X renown over a guild with 10 players earning X renown and 50 others averaging X/10 renown. So it will still be better to be small and extremely active. Slightly favoring large guilds just helps those players that are slightly less active to a smaller degree than what their guild is favored.

Under the old system small guilds had less decay/renown when factoring in the guild bonus. What I suggested gives small guilds 3x more decay than large gulds instead of 9x more decay when factoring in the gulid bonus. So large guilds are still getting a signficant benefit relative to small guilds compared to the old system.

I don't think leveling should be based on account, but decay should factor in the # of accounts since it is punitive. I just think decay should be much less than it was for all guilds.

[Tshober]

You are absolutely correct on this one. How would you feel if the entire system was scrapped? Guilds would still exist just without all the fuss.

That would be preferable to going back to the old decay system for me, although I am uncertain a majority of my guild members would agree with me on that one. However, I am still hopeful we can reach an acceptable system that will allow people to keep the ships and buffs they now enjoy.

[theslimshady]

The test system was based on the old system with a change to the formula. The change I proposed was based on the old system with a change to the formula.

The only difference between the two is that gulds below 90 people get reduced renown, but not as much as large guilds. Removing decay entirely would certainly be great, but I am not sure why you opposed to a system that would reduce decay for small guilds also if Turbine is unwilling to eliminate decay.

because everything that includes any kind of activity limits or account size based decay is unexceptable to much stuff happens in real life to take away the fun of this game when we can play and the ole system did that daily for a huge number of players
so proposing to go back to any form of it is well just not going to get good reactions nothing i am saying is against or for your guild personally

i again beleave the base system is great the way it is currently that small guilds under 12 should see 0 decay rate at all levels with there current small bonus and from 13-50 should get better bonuses so all guilds can progress forward

[Gremmlynn]

No, as I have said too freaking many times, I support removing decay entirely.

I do no want to go back to the old decay system.

I do no want to go back to the old decay system and make minor adjustments.

I am okay with making minor adjustments, just not with going back to the old system first.

The old decay system sucked way too much for me to ever support going back to it.

If the devs elect to go back to the old decay system, I will consider it a defeat for me, my guild, and DDO.

People just can't seem to understand that as long as there is a cost assigned to having a player in a guild that some players will come out in the red on a cost to benefit analysis and thus be a liability to have in one's guild. Turbine might as well send those players promos of other games as the less a player plays the more important it is for them to have a network of people in place to play with. Even if the core members of the guild mostly ignore them, at least the other "noobs" they are using to gain easy renown should provide a better environment than the LFM panel and some "kindly" guild vet might even point out which quests are likely to be the best, if for no other reason that to increase their renown drops. So even in the worst case the would seem to be better off.

[Tshober]

The test system was based on the old system with a change to the formula. The change I proposed was based on the old system with a change to the formula.

You make a good point there, I admit. But the change they have made has done so much good that I am just unwilling to risk undoing it to try going in a different direction.

[Chaos000]

No guilds wouldn't have a disincentive to stop recruiting past 50. They would just have a disincentive to recruit casual players at all. As long as there is any cost, be it an actual cost or the loss of a bonus, for adding players it will always cause guilds to make a judgment call as to whether it is a net gain to add or kick a player.

The disincentive to recruit casual players is more apparent for guilds that have always relied heavily on the mechanics of the guild renown size bonus. Remove the size bonus and reducing the decay makes sense. 2% of total renown for each player levels the playing field for guilds between the sizes of 1-50. If the renown caps out at 100%, 51+ guilds actually can reduce the 2% to a lower percentage per player they add. I believe inherent diminishing returns you get with added numbers (higher theoretical potential, lower probability to meet that potential) will prevent abuse, personally I believe that until the numbers swell enough that the decay percentage per player becomes less than 0.09%... the decay “tax” should not increase.

Once a guild gets their recruitment up to 50, the incentive is to continue recruiting players be it casual or active. I would be nice if guilds no longer required you to pull all your characters out of your current guild to join them.

Kicking players still nets loss renown. I feel it should be double the amount lost when the player makes the decision to quit the guild. Assign a multiplier if multiple players are booted within a 24 hour period? I don’t know… balancing is kind of tricky I don’t envy the developer that makes these calls. I’m trying to keep the suggestions simple so that it would be less difficult to implement.

[slarden]

The disincentive to recruit casual players is more apparent for guilds that have always relied heavily on the mechanics of the guild renown size bonus. Remove the size bonus and reducing the decay makes sense. 2% of total renown for each player levels the playing field for guilds between the sizes of 1-50. If the renown caps out at 100%, 51+ guilds actually can reduce the 2% to a lower percentage per player they add. I believe inherent diminishing returns you get with added numbers (higher theoretical potential, lower probability to meet that potential) will prevent abuse, personally I believe that until the numbers swell enough that the decay percentage per player becomes less than 0.09%... the decay “tax” should not increase.

Once a guild gets their recruitment up to 50, the incentive is to continue recruiting players be it casual or active. I would be nice if guilds no longer required you to pull all your characters out of your current guild to join them.

Kicking players still nets loss renown. I feel it should be double the amount lost when the player makes the decision to quit the guild. Assign a multiplier if multiple players are booted within a 24 hour period? I don’t know… balancing is kind of tricky I don’t envy the developer that makes these calls. I’m trying to keep the suggestions simple so that it would be less difficult to implement.

Even with the guild renown size bonus we are still required to generate 9x more renown/account than a guild of 200. This bonus only partially reduced the disadvantage we already had. In the case of our small guild we made up for this by always taking renown as an end reward, using guild elixirs and focusing on renown.

We never had an advantage other than focusing on renown for leveling. There as a flaw in the decay system that gave small guilds a benefit that I never realized until I did the math.

Under the test system since addding a new player doesn't add decay, you actually gain renown when bringing someone on and then later booting them.

I think booted active players should result in 100% loss of renown if we want to remove the incentive to boot players. Why put a punitive decay tax on small guilds when it is far easier to put a puntive measure that prevents booting.

If large guilds won't be booting players any more, they should be behind this. If a guild really wants to get rid of a player, they should get no benefit from having had this person in the guild in the first place.

[theslimshady]

It's funny, because you just got this massive benefit as a large guild and argue that I should be happy because nothing changed for me.

But if I propose a plan that gives you the same exact benefit as the test system while giving a partial benefit to guilds of less than 90 you are against it even though it does nothing to hurt you. That is the case even when under the old system small guilds have less decay and other the proposed system they would have 3x more decay.

I am not sure how it's possible to conclude anything other than you don't want small gulds to get any benefit at all.

If you think small guilds should get a benefit, what would you propose? Obviously all seem fine with removing decay entirely, but we all know Turbine is not ok with that idea. What would be your plan for giving small gulids a reasonable amount of decay relative to large gulds? Or do you really just want the system exactly the way it is now so that only small gulds suffer with this massive decay tax?

0-12 accounts 0 decay none at all at any level all renown gained is kept and small guild bonus applied
13-50 same as new system except raise bonus to renown gained
51-+ nothing change nothing
i beleave this with the current system makes small guilds under 12 cas player friendly
meduim and small guilds can still be uber and large guilds can be large casual guilds without having to bleed out or hit renown walls forcing to restructure

[theslimshady]

I like the idea of going off of a size schedule. That is almost too generous to give small guilds no decay at all. I would be happy with just a smaller number. I do like the concept of measuring decay by guild size range.

well my reason behind that is i dont think its fair even to tight small guilds that have real life issues that come up that when they come back to game they would have to restructure or have to bleed out

and imo over 12 accounts can recruit or plan ahead and large can just overwhelm this issue making it safe for all if they cant be active to feel like its okay to come back and play without any burden this imo goes with the same type of spirit used across dnd tables across the world where if you couldnt attend that week it wasnt like you became a worthless player and hope you get back soon

[Artos_Fabril]

well my reason behind that is i dont think its fair even to tight small guilds that have real life issues that come up that when they come back to game they would have to restructure or have to bleed out

and imo over 12 accounts can recruit or plan ahead and large can just overwhelm this issue making it safe for all if they cant be active to feel like its okay to come back and play without any burden this imo goes with the same type of spirit used across dnd tables across the world where if you couldnt attend that week it wasnt like you became a worthless player and hope you get back soon

If your concern is people problems caused to the guild by people being away for real-life issues, why not just have all decay based on the number of active accounts.

This is where I again plug my idea of basing decay solely off the number of active accounts (with no min guild size or addition), and calculating active accounts based on whether any renown was earned, rather than whether a character was logged in.

[yawumpus]

Yawumpus, as promised here is the chart that shows small guilds did actually get a benefit on decay/account under the old system because the math was oversimplified. This is a very simple proposal that fixes the old system with a slight change in formula and lowers decay by 80% for most guilds. For gulids 90 and above it matches the test model. For guilds below level 90 they get some benefit so the decay differences aren't so outrageous. You can see the unfair advantage small gulids got regarding decay in the first column (parentheses). The # in parentheses shows the renown required to cover decay when factoring in the small guild bonus. Large guilds were correct that decay was unfair to large guilds - nobody ever bothered to do the math to prove it.

It also recognizes that large guilds do have a harder time with renown and thus does favor those guilds slightly as it should.

Read my post. My claim was that increasing membership over 50 (the number Impact used for his example "large guild") favored the guild renown increase in every way. Your graph shows exactly that.

I did admit that once a small guild worked five to ten times as hard just to get to the upper levels, they finally had a chance to get higher levels without being hit as much. The old rules benefited large guilds (both casual and otherwise) and reknown obsessed small guilds. Just having less decay/account is one thing, once you cover the decay you still have to pull millions of reknown with fewer members.

Right now, I'm in a 6 man guild that finally got a chance to start getting more rewards, but we are being creamed by decay that larger guilds no longer worry about at all (we aren't dedicated reknown farmers). Once upon a time, it was a relatively large and active guild, then it imploded in a burst of drama shortly after the guild levels started. We've probably added half the reknown since the implosion, but who knows if we qualify as an "active guild" by our high reknown overlords.