Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

For the record - all those who left us to form small guilds, tiny guilds, or who just got sad we were stuck at the wall for so long....

Doors open, contact an officer for details on what to do to come back. Or just go hit our webpage and follow the directions.

Griffon's Nest - Sarlona

[Impaqt]

YES ABSOLUTELY!! THE BEST ANSWER TO DATE!

Solves almost all problems.

I don't need mathematical formulas and bonuses dictating my moves. Arbitrary values based on someone else's logic.

Give Us Choice, and we will decide for ourselves.

huh?

wouldnt a guild with 100 member be able to buy far more amenities than a guild with 6 still?

This would fix nothing.

[DocBenway]

This argument is still going?
thought the vast majority of you had realized the benefits to be had from the new system.

I thought you had stopped ignoring that everyone has realized the benefits of the new system, just not everyone benefits from those benefits. It is obvious you think a small guild with a bonus is some great injustice that caused people to leave your guild, kill your father and violate your mother. That doesn't change the fact that helping those who were not helped by the change already, hurts and affects you in no way at all and shouldn't evoke such vitriol.

[eris2323]

I thought you had stopped ignoring that everyone has realized the benefits of the new system, just not everyone benefits from those benefits. It is obvious you think a small guild with a bonus is some great injustice that caused people to leave your guild, kill your father and violate your mother. That doesn't change the fact that helping those who were not helped by the change already, hurts and affects you in no way at all and shouldn't evoke such vitriol.

No, I feel that making it so any solo-er can solo a guild to 100 is an insult and a mockery to the guild system, and there is probably a reason that the decay is set to a minimum value of 20.

Suspect the devs agree with me.

I'm not sure why you want to talk about killing my family. Please stop.

[Dandonk]

huh?

wouldnt a guild with 100 member be able to buy far more amenities than a guild with 6 still?

This would fix nothing.

Indeed.

[DocBenway]

No, I feel that making it so any joe schmoe solo-er can solo a guild to 100 is an insult and a mockery to the guild system, and there is probably a reason that the decay is set to a minimum value of 20.

I feel that making statements that classify 1/100th of 1% of the playerbase as any joe schmoe solo-er is an insult to mathematics. Robert Maillet is a local. Does that mean everyone in the tri-county area is over 7 feet tall and played a role in 300? You are painting all small guilds with the same broad brush you hate when it is used to paint large guilds as Korthos spammers.

[eris2323]

I feel that making statements that classify 1/100th of 1% of the playerbase as any joe schmoe solo-er is an insult to mathematics. Robert Maillet is a local. Does that mean everyone in the tri-county area is over 7 feet tall and played a role in 300? You are painting all small guilds with the same broad brush you hate when it is used to paint large guilds as Korthos spammers.

Oh, I'm sorry I offended you with a term I find endearing so much that you then talked about killing my father and violating my mother.

I'll go change 'joe schmoe' to 'person' now solely so you can stop talking about violating my mother, which I take great offence to.

Any further references to violating my mother will be reported immediately.

[DocBenway]

Oh, I'm sorry I offended you with a term I find endearing so much that you then talked about killing my father and violating my mother.

I'll go change 'joe schmoe' to 'person' now solely so you can stop talking about violating my mother, which I take great offence to.

Any further references to violating my mother will be reported immediately.

You didn't offend me, you offended numbers and how they work. Person and joe schmoe are synonymous. Person with red hair and person with blue hair are similar, but not synonymous. ANY person doesn't do what you claim they do, a tiny fraction of a small percent of people do.

Any other perceived insult is a misreading on your part. All references to past slights that you think were inflicted upon you by small guilds were examples chosen due to intensity of vitrol you have displayed toward any small guild.

[eris2323]

You didn't offend me, you offended numbers and how they work. Person and joe schmoe are synonymous. Person with red hair and person with blue hair are similar, but not synonymous. ANY person doesn't do what you claim they do, a tiny fraction of a small percent of people do.

Any other perceived insult is a misreading on your part. All references to past slights that you think were inflicted upon you by small guilds were examples chosen due to intensity of vitrol you have displayed toward any small guild.

Oh, good, so I didn't offend you, but you did extremely offend me.

And not even the courtesy of an apology from you, although I did for you.

You're quality work.

I have no wish to continue speaking with any person or group of people who feel that it is okay to bring the conversation around to the topic of killing peoples families and violating their mothers.

Back in a couple hours, let's let the mods clean up.

[DocBenway]

Oh, good, so I didn't offend you, but you did extremely offend me.

And not even the courtesy of an apology from you, although I did for you.

You're quality work.

I am sorry you were insulted by a hyperbolic example of a slight that some small guild must have caused you in the past, to evoke such kneejerk hate and gnashing of teeth whenever the idea of similar decay relief for small guilds is mentioned.

Just imagine that each time you are accusing all small guilds of being the devil, that some may take your comments "to heart" just as strongly as you misread my example and be just as full of "righteous fury" over perceived slights. Your "I got mine, screw you, you bonus scamming cheaters" post do not help find a resolution. You know you got yours and that change is staying, what stake do you have in making sure not everyone else gets theirs?

[Artos_Fabril]

huh?

wouldnt a guild with 100 member be able to buy far more amenities than a guild with 6 still?

This would fix nothing.

Well, you have a few options to address that.
1) Ignore it: small guilds that earn a lot of renown can get a lot of stuff, less active guilds get less stuff. This is an activity based model that assumes the point of decay is to encourage playing.
2) Make usage caps to each amenity: either by # of accounts able to access, or number of uses. This is a hybrid model in which decay is based on users, so there is less penalty for casuals, but still may lead to more advancement focused guilds to cut low renown producers.
3) make different sizes of each amenity: small for small guilds, large for large guilds. This is just a more controllable version of the bad-old-days of renown decay based on guild size, encouraging cutting casual players.

[eris2323]

I am sorry you were insulted by a hyperbolic example of a slight that some small guild must have caused you in the past, to evoke such kneejerk hate and gnashing of teeth whenever the idea of similar decay relief for small guilds is mentioned.

Just imagine that each time you are accusing all small guilds of being the devil, that some may take your comments "to heart" just as strongly as you misread my example and be just as full of "righteous fury" over perceived slights. Your "I got mine, screw you, you bonus scamming cheaters" post do not help find a resolution. You know you got yours and that change is staying, what stake do you have in making sure not everyone else gets theirs?

I have no interest in talking to anyone who would bring up the violation of my mother in any way shape or form, and this is not an apology, this is simply more insults.

[SirCrazyRob]

Question.. What is the number of active "accounts" that make a "Tiny" guild, "Small" Guild, "Medium" Guild, "Large" Guild, etc etc. for purposes of guild renown bonus'. IE "you recieved 150 guild renown! (50 base 100 medium guild bonus)"
Thanks!
SirCrazyRob aka: Monkiii, Nosmainya, Nostiava, Mythian, Naturespride and on and on and on..LOL on Thelanis server

[eris2323]

Question.. What is the number of active "accounts" that make a "Tiny" guild, "Small" Guild, "Medium" Guild, "Large" Guild, etc etc. for purposes of guild renown bonus'. IE "you recieved 150 guild renown! (50 base 100 medium guild bonus)"
Thanks!
SirCrazyRob aka: Monkiii, Nosmainya, Nostiava, Mythian, Naturespride and on and on and on..LOL on Thelanis server

Here ya go ...

http://ddowiki.com/page/Guild_Renown

[Gremmlynn]

Ultimately this is a game and the game needs to be fair. Many of those casuals that were booted by large guilds are now happy members of small guilds. First these folks get booted and now are they punished for choosing a small guild by getting 10x more decay than they would have received in the guild that booted them?

No decay quota was removed for guilds of 10 or less and those guilds have many casual players. Ultimately the move just makes no sense. Turbine needs to address the fairness issue.

Arguing against casual players in small guilds to not get a break is really no argument at all. It's simply trying to give large guilds an advantage and to make it easier for large guilds to recruit vets from small guilds.

Horse apples. Turbine could care less what positive effect it had on large guilds. The effect on casual players who were getting booted from any size guild was all they were concerned about. Everything else is just a side effect.

[Gremmlynn]

well you never dealt with drunk ddoers people can be awesome then have a bit much and go nuts guild leaders need to be able to check peeps in there guild and not feel like they have to hold on to someone due to renown

How could anyone feel they have to hold on to someone due to renown? If you are going to boot them, then you probably shouldn't have let them in in the first place. So if you had done things right you wouldn't have had that renown in the first place.

Have a problem with a drunk player, ask them to log out. If they don't either eat the renown or put up with them, or simply have everybody /ignore them for the night.

[slarden]

Horse apples. Turbine could care less what positive effect it had on large guilds. The effect on casual players who were getting booted from any size guild was all they were concerned about. Everything else is just a side effect.

Well many of the casual players that were booted from large guilds ended up in small guilds. Now they are getting punished once again by getting 10x more decay than a person in the guild that booted them.

If we want to encourage casual players we would give a fair decay reduction to all guilds not just large guilds. It is achievable to help casual players in all guilds while solving the "booting" problem permanently.

Eliminate decay or reduce decay ratably for all guilds. Impose a 100% penalty on a guild that boots a character that has been active within the last 90 days. If a character is booted, the guild gains nothing and loses nothing for the time the person was in the guild. The booted player doesn't leave 75% of the renown in a guild that booted him. This will eliminate all gaming of the system and should be implemented ASAP.

[Artos_Fabril]

Agreed, his argument is not valid.

The idea that the small guild bonus gives small guilds an "advantage" is ridiculous. All it does is take away some of the obvious disadvantage that a small guilds has.

A guild of 4 needs to earn 50x more renown per player than a guild of 200. With the small guild bonus they only need to earn 20x more renown per player than a guild of 200. Advantage? certainly not. It makes the level climb achievable - not easy.

Why do you insist on continuing to use these ridiculous hyperbolic numbers?

Here's another example that might shed some light on the subject, assuming you're willing to engage in actual thought:

A guild of 6 receives 4000 renown per legendary victory, a guild of 10 receives 3400 renown per legendary victory, neither of these was affected by the change...

The guild of 10 only needs 70% of the renown per person that the guild of 6 needs per level.
But! They need 17.5% more total renown drops.
So here's the question: Why do you think each person in a smaller guild should have to work harder than a larger guild, but a larger guild should have to work harder in total than a smaller guild?

Might it have something to do with the fact that a guild of 4 and a guild of 10 get the same size bonus, but the guild of 10 has 2.5 times as many people to collect renown, yet both were unaffected by the change to decay?

Since they deny trying to encourage any particular guild size, either they're lying, or there's something being taken into account here that isn't reflected in the basic math. Perhaps it's the belief that there should be some reward for coordinating larger groups of people, or that it is more difficult to keep larger groups on-task. Or, possibly, it's a recognition that community is what keeps people playing MMOs, so while they aren't out to encourage any particular guild size, it is in their own interest to encourage people to form those communities.

[McFlay]

No, I feel that making it so any solo-er can solo a guild to 100 is an insult and a mockery to the guild system, and there is probably a reason that the decay is set to a minimum value of 20.

Suspect the devs agree with me.

I think they would too. That's why under the old system, even with the small guild bonuses, guilds of 1-5 already had to pull the most renown per player to level, and had the highest rate of decay per player. This still holds true under the new system. Proceed to argue your irrelevant point though, I'm sure the devs will take it into consideration while they continue to work on the decay system.

The issue isn't small guilds complaining about how much renown they have to pull to level, its that it is ludicrous to expect them to deal with 10x, 20x, or decay per player per day more then large guilds.

[Enoach]

I just want to pop in a make a few points to clear some things up.

First, the call for the change in guild renown was not done to stop guilds from kicking casual players. It was done so guilds didn't have to make the choice between members and gaining guild levels. If you look at many of the posts that lead up to this it was a guild leader/officer staff having inward problems having to make a decision to remove people because they were deemed not earning enough renown to offset the decay level the guild was receiving.

Second, the change to decay that was implemented flattened the decay for all guilds. Looking at guilds regardless of size each one has to earn the same amount of renown to satisfy decay. However, dividing that out by member takes on the assumption that all members are equal. What we learned from the outcry of Guilds that were stagnated by the previous Guild Decay amounts was that this was not true all guild members are not equal in their playtime or contribution to renown.

Arguments about size, who contributes more, what makes a guild etc. are doing nothing more than pulling attention away from the problem at hand, causing bitterness and malcontent. Lets get back to the constructive side keep up the ideas on how we the player base see how renown should be used. Keep the focus on allowing us the player base to decide what we want our Guilds to be, keep them focused on allowing them to be defined by us the player base (their customer).

I stand behind my previous statement about Turbine taking a step in the right direction. I'm still waiting for the next step, be it the removal of decay, changing decay to be based off a guilds monthly average attendance or something else.