Guild Renown Changes

[theslimshady]

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.

/signed

[McFlay]

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.

This is my issue with how the current guild system is being run. The vast majority of the games content is 6 man content. Raids are 12 man content. Why push a system where larger guilds have such massive advantages when the games content cant even support large groups.

A guild of 8 active players with similar play schedules already has a thick enough roster that they can form a solid base for any raid and easily fill in with non-guilded friends or pugs. Is it really a well thought out system to tell those 8 guys to enjoy dealing with decay, or go join a 300 person guild if you don't want to deal with it?

I'm not advocating for screwing any guild of a certain size, or preferential treatment for any guild of a certain size, but if my share of decay for being in a small guild amounts to 20x that what it would be if I just said screw it and hopped in a large guild, that is one flawed, broken system.

[slarden]

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.

They are not ridiculous numbers to anyone that does the math - the guild bonus simply decreases the disadvantage, they do not give an advantage. If there is an issue with the math go ahead and correct it. People are pushing that the guild bonus is unfair and that it should be taken away. Those of us in small guilds have a right to point out the obvious flaw in that argument. If you have an issue with the math - feel free to show some math.

I have no issue with the leveling aspect - that is fine. However, when you penalize players in a small guild 10x more than a player in a large guild after the guild bonus is factored in - there is a serious flaw in the system.

I think there are two issues here: the leveling component at the penalty component. Nobody is complaining about the leveling component - a few people from large guilds just keep throwing that out to distract from the topic at hand which is decay.

If they wish to encourage people to form communities they absolutely need to invite small guilds to the party. Small groups use channels, lfms, setup raids, engage in group chat and communicate with people from all guilds. There is no reason that a person in a small guild should be penalized with 10x more decay after the small guild bonus is factored in. What is your purpose of try and keep imposing this distorted penalty on small guilds?

I think it is reasonable for the people that are disadvantaged to raise the issue. Around 100 people from small guilds commented on this thread and the other 2 renown thread in the general discussion area.

When large guilds were trying to get help with decay many peopel from small guilds signed and advocated for the issue. These same people from large guilds are now fighting against giving small guilds the same type of decay that large guilds received. What purpose does that achieve?

I am very happy that large guilds were helped out by thei process and no desire to remove any benefits those guilds received. However, when guilds are receiving 90% more reduction in decay while other guilds get no reduction and in fact have to incur an increased ransack penalty on top of that - they have every right ot raise the issue and keep it alive.

[theslimshady]

I have no issue with the leveling aspect - that is fine. However, when you penalize players in a small guild 10x more than a player in a large guild after the guild bonus is factored in - there is a serious flaw in the system.



I think it is reasonable for the people that are disadvantaged to raise the issue. Around 100 people from small guilds commented on this thread and the other 2 renown thread in the general discussion area.

When large guilds were trying to get help with decay many peopel from small guilds signed and advocated for the issue. These same people from large guilds are now fighting against giving small guilds the same type of decay that large guilds received. What purpose does that achieve?

I am very happy that large guilds were helped out by thei process and no desire to remove any benefits those guilds received. However, when guilds are receiving 90% more reduction in decay while other guilds get no reduction and in fact have to incur an increased ransack penalty on top of that - they have every right ot raise the issue and keep it alive.

lets make this a drinking game for everytime he said something like this in the 3 different threads you have to drink

[theslimshady]

What is the purpose of the continued attacks. All that guilds of 10 and less are asking for is the same decay break other guilds received. You act like we are attacking you for asking for something all other guilds already received. Do you realize you how ridiculous that is?

it was a joke alot of us are tring to go from locked sides of a argument to finding some common ground as well as tring to lighten the mood sorry that you thought my joke was in anyway about guild size it was a joke on saying the same thing over and over and over

[Artos_Fabril]

They are not ridiculous numbers to anyone that does the math

They are ridiculous numbers. There are exactly zero guilds with 200 players who are actually active. There are a few guilds with 200 "active" players, but of those less than half are likely to log in in any given week, and less than a 5th on a daily basis.

Furthermore, you started with this 200 vs 4 ****, were called on how ridiculous it is, amended it to 100 vs 6, which is still unheard of, and have since crept back to the original assumption of 200 constantly active players. Here's the problem: If there was a guild with 200 players who were all active on a daily basis, they would already be level 100 and would only drop from max renown between the time when decay was calculated and whenever their peak hours began. So cut the hyperbole. The number are right, but the assumptions are deeply flawed.

- the guild bonus simply decreases the disadvantage, they do not give an advantage. If there is an issue with the math go ahead and correct it. People are pushing that the guild bonus is unfair and that it should be taken away. Those of us in small guilds have a right to point out the obvious flaw in that argument. If you have an issue with the math - feel free to show some math.

I have no issue with the leveling aspect - that is fine. However, when you penalize players in a small guild 10x more than a player in a large guild after the guild bonus is factored in - there is a serious flaw in the system.

First off, leveling and decay are just different sides of the same coin. They're both a factor of renown earned, You completely ignored the point that a guild of 10 has 40% of the decay per person as a guild of 4, and both were unaffected by the change. If there's an iniquity in the system, it existed before the change to renown and is totally unaffected by it. If it is there for a reason, figuring out the reason is imperative to finding an equitable solution.

I think there are two issues here: the leveling component at the penalty component. Nobody is complaining about the leveling component - a few people from large guilds just keep throwing that out to distract from the topic at hand which is decay.

It all boils down to renown earned. Total renown is reduced by decay, but the amount of renown earned is unaffected. So if you don't have a problem with needing 17% more renown in total, or 30% less per person, in a guild of 10 than a guild of 6, or why a guild of 10 gets the same bonus as a guild of 4, but needs 60% less renown per person, either to level or to beat decay, then why should you have a problem that a guild of 100, or even 1000, needs less renown per person to beat decay?

If they wish to encourage people to form communities they absolutely need to invite small guilds to the party. Small groups use channels, lfms, setup raids, engage in group chat and communicate with people from all guilds. There is no reason that a person in a small guild should be penalized with 10x more decay after the small guild bonus is factored in. What is your purpose of try and keep imposing this distorted penalty on small guilds?

Maybe you should go back and read some of my previous posts in this thread. I've offered up other possible decay mechanics and thrown my support behind eliminating it completely. This isn't about keeping you down, it's about understanding the system and trying to balance it, rather than just whining about it.

A person in a guild of 1 has the same bonus as a person in a guild of 16, but has to deal with 16 times as much decay! Why do you think that might be? Is it "unjust"? Does it hurt the community?

I think it is reasonable for the people that are disadvantaged to raise the issue. Around 100 people from small guilds commented on this thread and the other 2 renown thread in the general discussion area.

When large guilds were trying to get help with decay many peopel from small guilds signed and advocated for the issue. These same people from large guilds are now fighting against giving small guilds the same type of decay that large guilds received. What purpose does that achieve?

I also think it is reasonable for people who are genuinely disadvantaged to raise an issue, and I think it's reasonable for people who can see through rhetoric which only cites facts that support its cause to call BS.

[Chaos000]

People are pushing that the guild bonus is unfair and that it should be taken away.

The guild bonuses under the old system enabled smaller sized guild with a high percentage of active members to be able to advance to max level while it remained out of reach for larger sized guilds with as many or in some cases a higher number of equally active members. Due to decay being factored per player, the individual accomplishment of renown gain for a single player -- in a guild of ANY size -- was diminished for each additional player that could not maintain the same level of activity.

Players did not have the mechanism to reduce decay in order to advance so it became mandatory to "trim the fat" or start a new group that required a certain level of activity. (I still feel that the idea to tie in renown decay or bonus to ship size is a fantastic idea because it would allow for more choice)

"decay per player" and "size bonus" is divisive as it gives the measure of when a guild is better off without certain members. Decay per guild level was a good move as it removed the penalty of retaining or adding an additional player irregardless of their level of activity. Guild size bonuses continues to perpetuate an opportunity cost for small guilds. Adding an additional player because if their level of activity does not make up for the bonuses being lost it then it is only "worth it" if a player meets a certain criteria in terms of renown gain.

Therefore, just telling a small guild to "go out and recruit" doesn't help the situation in the current system. Eliminating the size bonus and sharply reducing the decay to near insignificant amounts as compensation is an idea worth considering. (To prevent abuse i.e. kicking all members after achieving a certain level, my solution to this issue is any player that drank a guild renown potion will take all their renown with them if they happen to be kicked. paranoid players will begin to start buying guild renown potions from the store as insurance) Guilds should never be penalized for their association with additional players nor should they have to struggle to maintain their level when under a certain size.

[slarden]

The guild bonuses under the old system enabled smaller sized guild with a high percentage of active members to be able to advance to max level while it remained out of reach for larger sized guilds with as many or in some cases a higher number of equally active members. Due to decay being factored per player, the individual accomplishment of renown gain for a single player -- in a guild of ANY size -- was diminished for each additional player that could not maintain the same level of activity.

Players did not have the mechanism to reduce decay in order to advance so it became mandatory to "trim the fat" or start a new group that required a certain level of activity. (I still feel that the idea to tie in renown decay or bonus to ship size is a fantastic idea because it would allow for more choice)

"decay per player" and "size bonus" is divisive as it gives the measure of when a guild is better off without certain members. Decay per guild level was a good move as it removed the penalty of retaining or adding an additional player irregardless of their level of activity. Guild size bonuses continues to perpetuate an opportunity cost for small guilds. Adding an additional player because if their level of activity does not make up for the bonuses being lost it then it is only "worth it" if a player meets a certain criteria in terms of renown gain.

Therefore, just telling a small guild to "go out and recruit" doesn't help the situation in the current system. Eliminating the size bonus and sharply reducing the decay to near insignificant amounts as compensation is an idea worth considering. (To prevent abuse i.e. kicking all members after achieving a certain level, my solution to this issue is any player that drank a guild renown potion will take all their renown with them if they happen to be kicked. paranoid players will begin to start buying guild renown potions from the store as insurance) Guilds should never be penalized for their association with additional players nor should they have to struggle to maintain their level when under a certain size.

Asking small guilds to recruit doesn't work for a totally different reason. Small guilds are small by choice - not because of some crazy theory that small guild bonus is keeping us from recruiting. If you do the math adding a member will always be beneficial unless the person does next to nothing. This is not due to the guild bonus, it is due to DECAY. You see those of us in guilds of 10 or less are under the OLD system that everyone wanted to get out of. Those of us in small guilds still want out of that system to have a lower amount of decay like all other guilds.

As someone actually in a small guild I can tell you your theory makes no sense. We add people when it's natural. some people go inactive for long periods of time and then some come back. So optimizing guild size isn't really an option since you never know when someone might leave or an inactive person might become active and increase the # of members.

I am not sure why you can't understand that most small guilds don't think growing and recruiting is necessary or good unless it just happens in the natural course of playing and grouping. We don't want to be forced to be a big guild. It's a bad thing and a bad idea to make all guilds struggle with massive decay unless they get bigger.

[slarden]

They are ridiculous numbers. There are exactly zero guilds with 200 players who are actually active. There are a few guilds with 200 "active" players, but of those less than half are likely to log in in any given week, and less than a 5th on a daily basis.

Furthermore, you started with this 200 vs 4 ****, were called on how ridiculous it is, amended it to 100 vs 6, which is still unheard of, and have since crept back to the original assumption of 200 constantly active players. Here's the problem: If there was a guild with 200 players who were all active on a daily basis, they would already be level 100 and would only drop from max renown between the time when decay was calculated and whenever their peak hours began. So cut the hyperbole. The number are right, but the assumptions are deeply flawed.


First off, leveling and decay are just different sides of the same coin. They're both a factor of renown earned, You completely ignored the point that a guild of 10 has 40% of the decay per person as a guild of 4, and both were unaffected by the change. If there's an iniquity in the system, it existed before the change to renown and is totally unaffected by it. If it is there for a reason, figuring out the reason is imperative to finding an equitable solution.

It all boils down to renown earned. Total renown is reduced by decay, but the amount of renown earned is unaffected. So if you don't have a problem with needing 17% more renown in total, or 30% less per person, in a guild of 10 than a guild of 6, or why a guild of 10 gets the same bonus as a guild of 4, but needs 60% less renown per person, either to level or to beat decay, then why should you have a problem that a guild of 100, or even 1000, needs less renown per person to beat decay?

Maybe you should go back and read some of my previous posts in this thread. I've offered up other possible decay mechanics and thrown my support behind eliminating it completely. This isn't about keeping you down, it's about understanding the system and trying to balance it, rather than just whining about it.

A person in a guild of 1 has the same bonus as a person in a guild of 16, but has to deal with 16 times as much decay! Why do you think that might be? Is it "unjust"? Does it hurt the community?


I also think it is reasonable for people who are genuinely disadvantaged to raise an issue, and I think it's reasonable for people who can see through rhetoric which only cites facts that support its cause to call BS.

It is perfectly reasonable to compare a guild of 4 to 200 to determine fairness - in fact it should be done. There are guilds on Sarlona much bigger than 200 accounts. 200 is not a ficticious number - not even close to being unreasonable. I never thought comparing 4 to 200 was ridiculous, I simply compared 6 to 100 to show that it still proved the case. And it does - the math is so crystal clear and yet some people choose to argue rhetoric instead of deal in facts.

Here is the problem with your assumptions. Small guilds also have people that only log in from time to time and don't play much. And it is not the exception

I have offered many alternatives including the elimination of decay. This is not rhetoric. Like the roughly 100 other small guilds that commented about this system, I see the obvious inequity in the system and believe it should be addressed. If you don't like an idea you will call "rhetoric" plain and simple. It's alot easier to just attack and argue when the facts are not on your side. This is why I like to use #s, it really shows the problem.

And no renown and decay are not the same thing. Decay is a penalty and it is not fair that a member of one guild receives decay 10x higher than someone in another guild after guild bonus is factored in. Decay is ultimately a penalty on the players of the guild.

[Artos_Fabril]

And no renown and decay are not the same thing. Decay is a penalty and it is not fair that a member of one guild receives decay 10x higher than someone in another guild after guild bonus is factored in. Decay is ultimately a penalty on the players of the guild.

So if you think it is totally unfair that a member of a 1 person guild has to deal with 16 times the decay per person as a member of a 16 person guild, why do you think the system is designed that way, and what is your actual proposal to address it?

Would it be more fair if the member of the 1 person guild earned 16 times the renown per renown pull as a member of a 16 person guild?

All your hyperbolic numbers do is detract from your argument. Certainly there are guilds with 200 "active" players. But if you can find 1 200 player guild where every member has logged in within the past 24 hours, I will find you 200 guilds with 10 or fewer players where every member has logged in within the past 24 hours.

[Tshober]

I'm not advocating for screwing any guild of a certain size, or preferential treatment for any guild of a certain size, but if my share of decay for being in a small guild amounts to 20x that what it would be if I just said screw it and hopped in a large guild, that is one flawed, broken system.

Then let's advocate for eliminateing decay entirely. Then your share of decay will be zero, just like mine, and everyone else's. What could be more fair?

[slarden]

So if you think it is totally unfair that a member of a 1 person guild has to deal with 16 times the decay per person as a member of a 16 person guild, why do you think the system is designed that way, and what is your actual proposal to address it?

Would it be more fair if the member of the 1 person guild earned 16 times the renown per renown pull as a member of a 16 person guild?

All your hyperbolic numbers do is detract from your argument. Certainly there are guilds with 200 "active" players. But if you can find 1 200 player guild where every member has logged in within the past 24 hours, I will find you 200 guilds with 10 or fewer players where every member has logged in within the past 24 hours.

That is your argument not mine. I never argued that guild bonus should be an equalizer. It is not that now and never has been. Nobody is asking what you are suggesting so I have no idea why you are trying to fight about it. You can debate that with yourself.

A few people continue to pretend that small guilds are wanting to change leveling. Nobody is asking to change that I am aware of. We are at a significant disadvantage for leveling and accept it. That makes sense because it may take longer to level, but it doesn't prevent us from leveling. The penalty aspect does not make sense.

I would like to see decay eliminated entirely. I continue to be focused solely on the penalty aspect of the system because that is where the problem is right now. The leveling aspect is working just fine the way it is. It was well thought out.

[Dandonk]

I would like to see decay eliminated entirely. I continue to be focused solely on the penalty aspect of the system because that is where the problem is right now. The leveling aspect is working just fine the way it is. It was well thought out.

This.

Since decay was effectively removed as a consideration for large guilds, it's obviously not something Turbine considers important to the system anymore. So why not just remove it for all guilds, then?

[theslimshady]

This.

Since decay was effectively removed as a consideration for large guilds, it's obviously not something Turbine considers important to the system anymore. So why not just remove it for all guilds, then?

because then we would be in the same boat as what you are complaining about
the guild bonuses from small and meduim guilds would be showing favoritism by making it where there pulls where higher then all the large guilds players
so to end decay means in fairness we would also have to end the bonuses thats why i suggested turning decay off for 10 or under members and once you broke 10 members there was no going back

[Dandonk]

because then we would be in the same boat as what you are complaining about
the guild bonuses from small and meduim guilds would be showing favoritism by making it where there pulls where higher then all the large guilds players
so to end decay means in fairness we would also have to end the bonuses thats why i suggested turning decay off for 10 or under members and once you broke 10 members there was no going back

Favoritism? How? A 100 account guild would still level up much faster than small guilds.

Turning decay off for only sub-10 account guilds would limit people's willingness to recruit, which I doubt Turbine wants to do.

[theslimshady]

Favoritism? How? A 100 account guild would still level up much faster than small guilds.

Turning decay off for only sub-10 account guilds would limit people's willingness to recruit, which I doubt Turbine wants to do.

because if i pull 50 and you pull 50 with no decay why should you get more what makes small and meduim guilds more special that each peice of renown would be worth more if there is no decay to fight -------

[Dandonk]

because if i pull 50 and you pull 50 with no decay why should you get more what makes small and meduim guilds more special that each peice of renown would be worth more if there is no decay to fight -------

To encourage guild diversity, which was part of the original goals of the system?

And why is this an issue for you? I thought I wasn't allowed to feel things were unfair since it didn't make me worse off in absolute terms. Why is that OK for you now, then? /confused

[theslimshady]

Turning decay off for only sub-10 account guilds would limit people's willingness to recruit, which I doubt Turbine wants to do.

huh that was the whole point they was debating they didnt want to recruit and had no plans too because they liked only the small guild feel or something and had cas members that decay was becoming a burden

[theslimshady]

I thought I wasn't allowed to feel things were unfair since it didn't make me worse off in absolute terms

thank you for honestly answering what damage the new system is doing to your own guild this is what the majority of the people are saying about the new system

[Dandonk]

huh that was the whole point they was debating they didnt want to recruit and had no plans too because they liked only the small guild feel or something and had cas members that decay was becoming a burden

Some won't, some will. Taking away the choice, or at least severely hindering it, is not something I think Turbine will want to do.

thank you for honestly answering what damage the new system is doing to your own guild this is what the majority of the people are saying about the new system

Apart from the fact the the new ransack does hit small guilds with more penalties than before (though how much is difficult to say), you're welcome. I don't think I ever said otherwise, but if so, I apologize.

But how about replying to the rest of the post? Taking things out of context is always fun, of course, but why not comment on the entire paragraph?