Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

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.

oh I completely agree with every point you have. I was only acknowledging that the old system also had flaws. But I don't think the new system is right either.

[slarden]

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.

Based on the way you described it - it sounded like the main intent was for small guilds to get a lower renown bonus on days when some didn't log in.

It seems like this system can only hurt a small guild and only help a large guild. Seems like just another way to stick it to those of us in small guilds even more unless there is more to your methodology that I am missing.

[eris2323]

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.

I wish you'd stop calling your guild a small guild - by definition of players, you have a 'very small guild'.

Small guilds, by Turbines definition, have 10+ players, and you do not qualify for that.

For me, I dunno, 9 times the work, when you have only 2 active players, versus 200 active players of a large guild?

Seems like you're getting off easy.

[jhadden30]

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.

I agree plus scrapping it would probably get the same reaction from the majority of other guilds as well. Maybe, maybe not I guess.

[Chaos000]

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

What would be your issue with reducing decay tax by 2% per player less than 50? (50 = 100%, 25 = 50%, 5 = 10% of the decay tax) larger guilds will not experience the reduction AND there would no longer need to be a renown bonus as the decay tax will no longer be an inhibiting factor for smaller guilds? Progression for all guilds will now be possible as decay now becomes nonexistent in smaller numbers without penalizing large guilds either.

[theslimshady]

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.

because we are looking for easy button fixes to already wrote code not into rewritting the entire guild leveling system

because as leader of one of the largest most active highest level guilds across the servers i am fine with the new system thumbs up

because tring to find any common ground between small and large guilds is silly and not really even needed

because the leveling speed of renown gain was never a issue the horserace to first was over a year ago i beleave everyone else will always be 2nd best

because alot and i mean alot of players are okay with being in large casual guilds and the old renown system made all of them feel bad

because no where else is there a example of smaller amounts of people being equal to a larger amount of the same kind of people {game players } anywhere i mean 200-2 i dont care what 2 they are they have no chance of success in a head to head period

because when we tried to open debates to address the issues we all were having we were abused by a minorty of people calling us lazy and inactive and all kinda other names my favorite is korthos style army

because when we are finally feeling good about renown we have to hear about the reason it sucks from small guilds isnt they cant gain renown and move forward but solely on that they cant keep up with the largest examples and we was only asking for forward moving not really even once tring to compare ourselves with the small guilds

[theslimshady]

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.

well from a buisness standpoint a larger body of customers is always the smartest bet i mean there are guilds on my server with 600 modified account sizes seems to me making them feel better playing the game in anyway would be a smart approach

[Tshober]

What would be your issue with reducing decay tax by 2% per player less than 50? (50 = 100%, 25 = 50%, 5 = 10% of the decay tax) larger guilds will not experience the reduction AND there would no longer need to be a renown bonus as the decay tax will no longer be an inhibiting factor for smaller guilds? Progression for all guilds will now be possible as decay now becomes nonexistent in smaller numbers without penalizing large guilds either.

Here are my criteria for any plan that I will support, listed in order of highest to lowest priority:

Mandatory:

1. There should never be an incentive to kick a player because of the renown they earn.


Not absolutely mandatory but very desirable:

2. There should always be a renown incentive to invite a player to your guild.

3. All guilds should be able to advance and not hit a wall that totally stops them from advancing.

4. Guilds that earn the most renown should level up the fastest.

5. The speed with which guilds level up should be roughly proportional to the amount of renown they earn.


The current test system satisfies all except #3. I believe it could be made to satisfy #3 as well with some tweaking. If I understand your plan correctly, it gains #3 for some guilds but loses #2 for some guilds and so I would reject it and say the current test plan is superior. By the way, the old decay system failed all 5 criteria.

[Artos_Fabril]

Based on the way you described it - it sounded like the main intent was for small guilds to get a lower renown bonus on days when some didn't log in.

It seems like this system can only hurt a small guild and only help a large guild. Seems like just another way to stick it to those of us in small guilds even more unless there is more to your methodology that I am missing.

Decay being based on a per-active-account basis, without a minimum number, means 0 people active = 0 decay. 1 person active = 1/20th of current minimum decay, 50 people active = 2.5 times the current decay. I would also tie the guild size bonus to the number of active people, because if you aren't getting a penalty, there's no justification for a bonus either, and even someone who's passively earning renown and not actively looking for it will provide positive movement.

The key to that system, though, is the way you calculate "activity". I propose that someone is not marked as active until they earn at least one point of renown, and when decay is calculated, the activity flag is reset for every character, so that a player only counts for decay if they have been active since the last decay calc.

[theslimshady]

Decay being based on a per-active-account basis, without a minimum number, means 0 people active = 0 decay. 1 person active = 1/20th of current minimum decay, 50 people active = 2.5 times the current decay. I would also tie the guild size bonus to the number of active people, because if you aren't getting a penalty, there's no justification for a bonus either, and even someone who's passively earning renown and not actively looking for it will provide positive movement.

The key to that system, though, is the way you calculate "activity". I propose that someone is not marked as active until they earn at least one point of renown, and when decay is calculated, the activity flag is reset for every character, so that a player only counts for decay if they have been active since the last decay calc.

this would imo require a new coded system which seems really really unrealistic plus maybe a restart of guild levels to begin with and i just dont see how that is even remotely possible or exceptable
i mean understand outside of small guilds not gaining on even ground almost all examples of guilds can forward progress currently withuout having to change but one number

[Tshober]

Decay being based on a per-active-account basis, without a minimum number, means 0 people active = 0 decay. 1 person active = 1/20th of current minimum decay, 50 people active = 2.5 times the current decay. I would also tie the guild size bonus to the number of active people, because if you aren't getting a penalty, there's no justification for a bonus either, and even someone who's passively earning renown and not actively looking for it will provide positive movement.

The key to that system, though, is the way you calculate "activity". I propose that someone is not marked as active until they earn at least one point of renown, and when decay is calculated, the activity flag is reset for every character, so that a player only counts for decay if they have been active since the last decay calc.

I'm sorry, but are you proposing that this change be added to the current test decay system? I tried to follow back on your posts in the thread but it was not clear to me.

[jhadden30]

well from a buisness standpoint a larger body of customers is always the smartest bet i mean there are guilds on my server with 600 modified account sizes seems to me making them feel better playing the game in anyway would be a smart approach

How did these more important customers get themselves out of bed in the morning before this guild system was implemented? Something else must have been keeping their attention.

[theslimshady]

How did these more important customers get themselves out of bed in the morning before this guild system was implemented? Something else must have been keeping their attention.

well as a leader of a large guild before and after the renown system was invented it took a lot of charm and wit

when the bleeding started it took alot of posting in guild to make people understand a system that was too complex in nature

and when the renown started flowing in again nothing but cheers and funny mabar memories that in all the prior years sucked cause having fun watching your guild bleed out just dosent feel right

[Artos_Fabril]

I'm sorry, but are you proposing that this change be added to the current test decay system? I tried to follow back on your posts in the thread but it was not clear to me.

No, this would use the old numbers for decay, but change the calculation from ((active, min10) +10)*decay to active* decay, and calculate activity based on the number of players who earned renown since the last decay period.

[theslimshady]

No, this would use the old numbers for decay, but change the calculation from ((active, min10) +10)*decay to active* decay, and calculate activity based on the number of players who earned renown since the last decay period.

do size bonues apply to all exsample a large guild of 51 members and only 10 log on and small guild of 10and all 10 log on do they pull the same amount of renown? cause if not this system would be biased

[Tshober]

No, this would use the old numbers for decay, but change the calculation from ((active, min10) +10)*decay to active* decay, and calculate activity based on the number of players who earned renown since the last decay period.

Ah, then in that case I must point out that your plan would still have players who were net negative renown earners and for that reason I can't recommend it. Any plan that makes some players undesirable in guilds is just not a good idea. The old decay system was rejected for that reason. Your plan would reduce their negative impact but not eliminate it.

[Chaos000]

If I understand your plan correctly, it gains #3 for some guilds but loses #2 for some guilds and so I would reject it and say the current test plan is superior. By the way, the old decay system failed all 5 criteria.

I agree with your criteria.

I think the mechanics of the guild renown size bonus decreasing as you add members is in direct conflict to item #2. Tweaking the current implementation by increasing the bonus to renown received does the opposite of giving an incentive to adding another player to the guild.

Adjusting the decay for guilds that currently recieve a bonus and eliminating the bonus deals with #3 quite effectively because current guilds 24 or less will see 50% or more reduction on the current rate of decay they are facing. Between 1-50 player guilds the system will be equitable. Guilds of 51+ will continue unaffected by these changes and continue to enjoy the current system.

[Artos_Fabril]

Ah, then in that case I must point out that your plan would still have players who were net negative renown earners and for that reason I can't recommend it. Any plan that makes some players undesirable in guilds is just not a good idea. The old decay system was rejected for that reason. Your plan would reduce their negative impact but not eliminate it.

Only players who earned between 1 and and the size modifier would be net negative earners. I'll admit that is potentially a non-zero number, but it's pretty insignificant below level 80, and it doesn't favor small guilds over large ones, or vice-versa.

[Faxe]

Wow, I think we may have a new DDO record for the longest post here. Thanks Vanshilar for all your data collection effort on guilds and other effects. Amazing works!

I think I'll just agree on most points except maybe this example below:

Under the current (or old) system, the vast majority of guilds won't reach those levels.
...<snip>...
And this brings up a good example. The poor guy leveled up 150 characters from level 1 to level 8 during the Build your Guild event to get his guild up to level 100. We have guilds with over 600 accounts who spammed complaints about renown decay leading to the change, including in this very thread. If each of the players in their guild had leveled up a single character from level 1 to level 8 just like this guy did, they would've been at level 100 too. Yet these guilds and many others claim that they are "incredibly active" and work "very hard" as much as small guilds near their level. Whenever you try to quantify what is meant by those terms, it just about always ends up being no contest: to get to those levels, each member in those small guilds has had to work much harder than each member in those large guilds at a similar guild level. And that ultimately is why those small guilds at the higher levels continue leveling when the large guilds stall. Because those players are putting in more effort.
...<snip>...

True, but that's not all. This example only works during the build your guild event. Each member would have to create a NEW account and farmed TP/paid for the high xp quests. With inspirations from Zonixx & Gondore, I was able to get five level 8s in only 2-3 hours from challenges and necro2. That level of effort is a fraction of what it takes to organize 600 new accounts without the small guild bonus. Can you imagine the logistics of it? Under the previous system, they would certainly decay back to their equilibrium in almost no time after the event too. For large guilds, it may be more efficient to organize a new guild like what Gondore did, but then it would be back to square one once the 600 accounts joined up.

I actually just wanted a level 70 guild, but I could not resist the easy renown. But it felt terribly unfair to still be receiving the small guild bonus after level 70 while casual large guilds were struggling at level 70.

[Faxe]

Here are my criteria for any plan that I will support, listed in order of highest to lowest priority:

Mandatory:

1. There should never be an incentive to kick a player because of the renown they earn.


Not absolutely mandatory but very desirable:

2. There should always be a renown incentive to invite a player to your guild.

3. All guilds should be able to advance and not hit a wall that totally stops them from advancing.

4. Guilds that earn the most renown should level up the fastest.

5. The speed with which guilds level up should be roughly proportional to the amount of renown they earn.


The current test system satisfies all except #3. I believe it could be made to satisfy #3 as well with some tweaking. If I understand your plan correctly, it gains #3 for some guilds but loses #2 for some guilds and so I would reject it and say the current test plan is superior. By the way, the old decay system failed all 5 criteria.

Nice and simple. If the devs gave a list like this, we'd have figured out a much better system by now. I'd just add another mandatory to help the devs out here
0. There should always be an incentive to buy even more renown potions and airship amenities.

Item #0 could be resolved with longer lasting/better amenities at the higher levels that many others had proposed. Or something like an antique airship token exchange for renown to buy the amenities as suggested by others too.

I think you've satisfied #3 with the system that you proposed here already:
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=385226
There was some disagreements with item #5 in the proposed system that may be resolved if you can combine it with the personal renown idea.