Guild Renown Changes

[theslimshady]

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?

huh what didnt i answer ? feelings ? i dont understand

[Dandonk]

huh what didnt i answer ? feelings ? i dont understand

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

[Gremmlynn]

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.

I agree with eliminating decay, but reducing decay leaves us with the same problem with just a lesser scale (basically, whatever degree you feel it should be reduced by may still seem onerous to another who's guild plays even less). I also agree with the 100% boot cost. If they are not good enough to play with you, for whatever reason, you don't deserve any of their renown. That simply helps keep everyone accountable for their actions.

But that has nothing really to do with the rather narrow issue the devs were trying to deal with. Which was guilds kicking players to better game their system.

[theslimshady]

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

this makes no sense i am currently not worse off and neither are you we already came to that conclusion
we are talking about ideas based on fairness and the main topic was that small guilds under 10 members have to work 10x as hard to combat decay and renown gains then a guild with 100 members
so it was suggested that decay be done away with {which i am totally for } but i was pointing out that if decay was done away with why would guild bonues still apply
my question was why a player in a small and meduim guilds under a no decay system still deserved to get bonuses on renown drops ? and what made them players because there guilds was number restricted special ?

[Dandonk]

this makes no sense i am currently not worse off and neither are you we already came to that conclusion

Decay no, ransack yes.

we are talking about ideas based on fairness and the main topic was that small guilds under 10 members have to work 10x as hard to combat decay and renown gains then a guild with 100 members
so it was suggested that decay be done away with {which i am totally for } but i was pointing out that if decay was done away with why would guild bonues still apply
my question was why a player in a small and meduim guilds under a no decay system still deserved to get bonuses on renown drops ? and what made them players because there guilds was number restricted special ?

But since by removing decay entirely and leaving small guild bonus you would not be worse off in large guilds, in absolute terms, why complain that it would be unfair? I thought we weren't allowed to do that?

[Dandonk]

I agree with eliminating decay, but reducing decay leaves us with the same problem with just a lesser scale (basically, whatever degree you feel it should be reduced by may still seem onerous to another who's guild plays even less). I also agree with the 100% boot cost. If they are not good enough to play with you, for whatever reason, you don't deserve any of their renown. That simply helps keep everyone accountable for their actions.

But that has nothing really to do with the rather narrow issue the devs were trying to deal with. Which was guilds kicking players to better game their system.

While in theory 100% kick cost sounds OK, it can have bad consequences. If decay is kept, we may at some point end up with players having more personal renown than the guild itself has. Thus kicking one could, in theory, take your guild from level 100 to level 1.
While this is likely not the case yet, it will get there sometime, and I think that part would need to be addressed before we get there.

[theslimshady]

Decay no, ransack yes.

i have seen no data on this at all as matters of fact 0 none of my many friends in many of small guilds seem to have see any decrease in one level gain at all

But since by removing decay entirely and leaving small guild bonus you would not be worse off in large guilds, in absolute terms, why complain that it would be unfair? I thought we weren't allowed to do that?

thats right i wouldnt

i was just tring to clarify what you was asking for , and for you to be happy it is no decay at all and all guild bonuses to stay and the large guilds to be quiet so you can try and get it

so in the spirit of your argument i would like to have no decay and a very large guild bonus added because this wouldnt effect you or your guild
lets say we should get the number of every active that logs on every 30 days in my case that would be a 200 percent increase to renown

[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 -------

Well, I thought you meant that.

thats right i wouldnt

But now I'm confused.

i was just tring to clarify what you was asking for , and for you to be happy it is no decay at all and all guild bonuses to stay and the large guilds to be quiet so you can try and get it

I am trying to get a fair system, for large and small guilds alike. How to get that, I'm not entirely sure. But it would certainly include some kind of equalizing factor to make up for the huge bonus large guilds have atm.

so in the spirit of your argument i would like to have no decay and a very large guild bonus added because this wouldnt effect you or your guild
lets say we should get the number of every active that logs on every 30 days in my case that would be a 200 percent increase to renown

By the tone of your post I gather you don't think this is a fair proposal. So I think we have come to the clonclusion that relative values ARE important, not just absolute ones. Thank you for recognizing this.

[Gremmlynn]

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.

That is assuming a similar level of activity. If ten of those 100 players account for half the renown gained, it would be better to boot the other 90 and use the bonus to come out ahead.

[Dandonk]

That is assuming a similar level of activity. If ten of those 100 players account for half the renown gained, it would be better to boot the other 90 and use the bonus to come out ahead.

Hmm, that is a good point. Though I doubt kickings would be as common as they seemingly have been, since decay would not be a problem, this could happen. Some finetuning is obviously needed.

[Gremmlynn]

While in theory 100% kick cost sounds OK, it can have bad consequences. If decay is kept, we may at some point end up with players having more personal renown than the guild itself has. Thus kicking one could, in theory, take your guild from level 100 to level 1.
While this is likely not the case yet, it will get there sometime, and I think that part would need to be addressed before we get there.

This has always been one of the systems problems. Be it from removing players or players quitting the guild even under good terms. It simply wasn't implemented well to begin with.

[theslimshady]

Well, I thought you meant that.



But now I'm confused.



I am trying to get a fair system, for large and small guilds alike. How to get that, I'm not entirely sure. But it would certainly include some kind of equalizing factor to make up for the huge bonus large guilds have atm.



By the tone of your post I gather you don't think this is a fair proposal. So I think we have come to the clonclusion that relative values ARE important, not just absolute ones. Thank you for recognizing this.

no i am saying that the current system was a great leap in the right direction and that this thread turned into a large guild small guild battle
which to me it is not we are all tring to get a system in place so all of our guilds can thrive and prosper
i would like a no decay system and i really dont care about small guilds getting bonuses or how slow or fast they level
i just really beleave that some not all of the small guild leaders have tried to make this new system way worse then it is
i think almost all guilds are progressing forward currently
and i think all that play this game should not be subjected to this unneeded stress
if i had a choice between the current system or the old system or a no decay system i would choose no decay but this thread was about old system to the new system and the new system is far better then the old system
i think the reason so many including myself in large guilds are so adament in this debate is because we felt that the small guilds where jeaprodizing the new system based on large guilds getting a break when they was not affected with any change to there decay
however after reveiwing alot of this thread i can see now that the case is small guilds would like there daily hurdles dealing with decay adjusted which as a guild leader i can understand and as long as we dont go back to the ole busted system of decay walls and decreasing levels i am really happy

[Dandonk]

no i am saying that the current system was a great leap in the right direction and that this thread turned into a large guild small guild battle
which to me it is not we are all tring to get a system in place so all of our guilds can thrive and prosper
i would like a no decay system and i really dont care about small guilds getting bonuses or how slow or fast they level
i just really beleave that some not all of the small guild leaders have tried to make this new system way worse then it is
i think almost all guilds are progressing forward currently
and i think all that play this game should not be subjected to this unneeded stress
if i had a choice between the current system or the old system or a no decay system i would choose no decay but this thread was about old system to the new system and the new system is far better then the old system
i think the reason so many including myself in large guilds are so adament in this debate is because we felt that the small guilds where jeaprodizing the new system based on large guilds getting a break when they was not affected with any change to there decay
however after reveiwing alot of this thread i can see now that the case is small guilds would like there daily hurdles dealing with decay adjusted which as a guild leader i can understand and as long as we dont go back to the ole busted system of decay walls and decreasing levels i am really happy

Small guilds also hit walls, whether you believe it or not. Well, many do at least, and my own guild among them.

I do not believe the new system is fair, since it only addresses part of the issue, and gives huge bonuses to one kind of guild over another. Therefore I argue that small guild should get some kind of extra bonus to keep them on the same footing with regards to large guilds as they were before.

I think that since Turbine has already decided that decay is not important for one type of guild, it should take the full step and just remove it.
But I do see the issues that have been raised in this thread with that solution, so any ideas on how to make it work better are very welcome.

[Gremmlynn]

Small guilds also hit walls, whether you believe it or not. Well, many do at least, and my own guild among them.

I do not believe the new system is fair, since it only addresses part of the issue, and gives huge bonuses to one kind of guild over another. Therefore I argue that small guild should get some kind of extra bonus to keep them on the same footing with regards to large guilds as they were before.

I think that since Turbine has already decided that decay is not important for one type of guild, it should take the full step and just remove it.
But I do see the issues that have been raised in this thread with that solution, so any ideas on how to make it work better are very welcome.

It only addresses that part of the issue indirectly. I doubt the devs were looking for a way to make large guilds have it easier. That was simply a side effect to a somewhat flawed change to make it so guilds don't find it more advantages to simply not include some players. Somewhat flawed because the size bonuses still can have that effect.

[Dandonk]

It only addresses that part of the issue indirectly. I doubt the devs were looking for a way to make large guilds have it easier. That was simply a side effect to a somewhat flawed change to make it so guilds don't find it more advantages to simply not include some players. Somewhat flawed because the size bonuses still can have that effect.

So we can totally discount the original statement that guilds of all sizes should be playable, and the more recent statement that any suggestions should be "fair"?

I'm more and more afraid you're right, but I think that's sad.

[Gremmlynn]

So we can totally discount the original statement that guilds of all sizes should be playable, and the more recent statement that any suggestions should be "fair"?

I'm more and more afraid you're right, but I think that's sad.

Before they introduced the whole level system, guilds of all sizes were playable.

It was when they tried to introduce a one size fits all system to the many different things people believed guilds represent that "fairness" went out the window.

[Dandonk]

Before they introduced the whole level system, guilds of all sizes were playable.

It was when they tried to introduce a one size fits all system to the many different things people believed guilds represent that "fairness" went out the window.

They commented when the level system was launched that it was supposed to be for all sizes of guilds.

"Fairness" was spoken of by a dev in this very thread, so I'm still hoping to hear from him/her what the fair part is about the current system. But it seems I'm on their ignore list now... oh, well.

[Gremmlynn]

They commented when the level system was launched that it was supposed to be for all sizes of guilds.

"Fairness" was spoken of by a dev in this very thread, so I'm still hoping to hear from him/her what the fair part is about the current system. But it seems I'm on their ignore list now... oh, well.

The problem is that "all sizes of guilds" in no way is the same as "all types of guilds". So trying to be fair to small casual guilds could be over the top for small hard core guilds and also limit the opportunities to even find a guild for casual players that didn't come to the game with others.

[Dandonk]

The problem is that "all sizes of guilds" in no way is the same as "all types of guilds". So trying to be fair to small casual guilds could be over the top for small hard core guilds and also limit the opportunities to even find a guild for casual players that didn't come to the game with others.

This is true.

But I'm not sure why the majority of the small guilds should pay for the minority that are hardcore.

And I'm not sure why it's OK for large hardcore guilds to get a huge bonus, while it isn't for small ones.

[slarden]

Let's just clear up some myths. There is a myth that small guild bonus gives an unfair leveling advantage. There is another myth that small guilds don't want to add members because it hurts small guilds to do so.



This shows just how untrue that is. The math was designed in such a way that adding a person was always favorable. Adding 1 person for a 6 person guild is the equivalent of adding nearly 3 people even with the reduction in bonus. The system was designed this way intentionally. The reason there are a large number of guilds with 6 isn't because guilds want to get smaller, it is because the guilds below 6 want to get bigger to get 6. Any guild with less than 6 already has a big disadvantage and as many pointed out getting to 6 helps the members earn more even if some of the accounts are bank accounts.

This not unlike many of the free to play folks I know that have multiple accounts to get around the 2 character limit. This is in fact one of things that was hurting large guilds under the old system. 1 person earning renown but getting decay for 6 because they had 6 accounts in the guild.

Here is the reason for small guild bonus. Level is tied to rewards and DDO didn't want to exclude a large percentage of the customer base that prefers small guilds:

Paiz: "That’s definitely something that we’re still trying to figure out and balance. There is some help for smaller guilds in this system… we don’t want to exclude a guild that might only include four people. We think that’s a totally valid way to play, and we’re trying not to force people to have 50 player guilds. If you’re in a small guild, you’ll get a small boost every time you pick up, what I call, a “renown token” because we want to make sure those guilds are able to get their airships and things like that. "

The new system clearly isn't consistent with this vision as many from guilds of all sizes have pointed out. So we would like Turbine to explain if they are changing this vision and why. Many of us have spent years leveling our small guilds - always taking renown as an end reward, taking guild elxirs and playing by the rules. With the new system guilds with the same average activity level as us will get to get bigger airship and more amenities. We will not for only one reason - the high decay that is only a significant factor for small guilds. Although guilds of 10 and less are impacted the most, even most guilds in the 11-30 range will hit a ceiling at some point and be unable to advance. They are currently moving, but as they approach the new ceiling their prrogress will slow.

As for the small guilds on the leader boards some are trying to slow down - what is the point? They are at such a high level because they play so much and they typically go through quests and raids very fast. There is no point to punish over 99% of the small guilds because some are successful. I am happy and impressed with those guilds. Even when the large guilds get to 100 it doesn't take away the fact that those guilds were so good they could get to 100 with such high decay. That is not the case with other small guilds.