Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

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.

Mostly because there is really no such thing as a large hard core guild. It's just counter to their nature, as in large groups of peers they aren't standing out as achievers. So they stick to smaller teams or, especially amongst the less proficient, surround them selves with "lesser" players in order to stand out.

[slarden]

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.

Removing decay will not limit opportunities for people to join guilds. There is no reason why a guild would take a casual player with decay and not take a player without decay. If you take a player without decay you always adding more net renown.

Removing decay is ultimately the right answer if we want to help out casual players and give them a choice of guild size - or even starting their own guild without getting discouraged by decay.

[Dandonk]

Mostly because there is really no such thing as a large hard core guild. It's just counter to their nature, as in large groups of peers they aren't standing out as achievers. So they stick to smaller teams or, especially amongst the less proficient, surround them selves with "lesser" players in order to stand out.

I find it hard to believe that there's no 30-person hardcore guilds (who get a 50% reduction in renown), but even if you are right - why should the vast majority of small guilds pay for a few hardcore guilds who likely are level 100 or close anyway?

[Gremmlynn]

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 sytem 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 are trying to slow down - what is the point? They at such a high level because they play so much. 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.

This assumes similar levels of activity again. 6 people earning 50k renown each/week will always be better off not adding another who earns ~800 the one day they play each week. Because they gain more than 56 times that 800 from the better level multiplier on their 300k.

[slarden]

This assumes similar levels of activity again. 6 people earning 50k renown each/week will always be better off not adding another who earns ~800 the one day they play each week. Because they gain more than 56 times that 800 from the better level multiplier on their 300k.

As an officer in a guild I have no way of knowing how much renown someone will earn. When they are in the guild I don't know how much renown they earn. We typically promote people to officer once they've been in the guild for a few months anyhow.

We add people because we like the people, not to optimize rewown. We are generally adding people we've quested with or at least have some familiarity with. That is how most small guilds operate - we don't do blind invites. If a 6 person guild adds a person that is half as active as the rest of the guild we still gain more renown and I can show you the math to prove it. The risk of adding a person is low.

The more common issue guilds face is that a person that was previously very active has a change in their life and can't play as much. This is a reality for most that play the game. Ultimately the only reason it is an issue at all is because of decay. Decay prevents guilds from leveling. If guilds could still level there would be really no reason to worry about such things. Small guilds just want the save ability to move forward as large guilds without having to worry about these formulas and what activities we do or don't do. It's that simple.

[Gremmlynn]

I find it hard to believe that there's no 30-person hardcore guilds (who get a 50% reduction in renown), but even if you are right - why should the vast majority of small guilds pay for a few hardcore guilds who likely are level 100 or close anyway?

30 isn't a large guild. Though it's probably pushing the limits for hard core achievers.

[Gremmlynn]

As an officer in a guild I have no way of knowing how much renown someone will earn. When they are in the guild I don't know how much renown they earn. We typically promote people to officer once they've been in the guild for a few months anyhow.

We add people because we like the people, not to optimize rewown. We are generally adding people we've quested with or at least have some familiarity with. That is how most small guilds operate - we don't do blind invites. If a 6 person guild adds a person that is half as active as the rest of the guild we still gain more renown and I can show you the math to prove it. The risk of adding a person is low.

The more common issue guilds face is that a person that was previously very active has a change in their life and can't play as much. This is a reality for most that play the game. Ultimately the only reason it is an issue at all is because of decay. Decay prevents guilds from leveling. If guilds could still level there would be really no reason to worry about such things. Small guilds just want the save ability to move forward as large guilds without having to worry about these formulas and what activities we do or don't do. It's that simple.

That's what you do, not what everyone does. But you keep making statements about how something is always so, not how that isn't so for you. As for keeping track of how much renown one earns. If you play every day and see someone only plays one day a week for a couple hours. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out about how much renown they are even capable of earning in that time and whether that is even close to the 45kish you are giving up in bonus to keep them around.

[slarden]

That's what you do, not what everyone does. But you keep making statements about how something is always so, not how that isn't so for you. As for keeping track of how much renown one earns. If you play every day and see someone only plays one day a week for a couple hours. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out about how much renown they are even capable of earning in that time and whether that is even close to the 45kish you are giving up in bonus to keep them around.

If decay is removed and we have a 100% penalty for booting, there is absolutely no incentive to boot. Around 100 small guilds have commented in the decay threads. If anything what I learned is that many small guilds operate much the same way I do. I also have many friends in small guilds and again they operate much the same way our guild does.

It isn't until guilds stop leveling that they start to analyze such things. So why keep decay at all? Is letting all guilds advance without decay a problem worth solving? I don't think so.

As for keeping track of people, no I don't do that. I don't know why anyone would do that. People play at different times and just because they aren't on the few hours I play doesn't mean they aren't on at some other point in the day. If someone was so obsessed with this I think they should consider getting some help.

[Dandonk]

30 isn't a large guild. Though it's probably pushing the limits for hard core achievers.

And what about the rest of the post?

[eris2323]

I like how this conversation continues, even though a guild of 3 casual players can level a 72 guild, and a guild of 4 casual players are levelling a level 91 guild.

Right now.

But they want it even easier?

So, what, let me get this straight? The tiny guilds want it EVEN EASIER? Still? Even though a level 91 guild with 4 casual players is back to levelling and over their wall.

Just how much of an advantage do you want?

No dice.

[Gremmlynn]

And what about the rest of the post?

You would have to ask Turbine about that.

[eris2323]

Coming up next in the DDO store! Solo guild levelling potions, 1500 tp.

One click, and your solo guild will be level 100.

Actually, this was in jest - but turbine, please do this, and put a little star next to the guild names that use these potions, so we know. Also lock those guilds to 10 players or less forever if they use the potion.

Just. to. stop. this. endless. repeating. argument.

suggest name of 'potion of i dont care if 4 people can level a level 91 guild, i want it even easier'

[Dandonk]

You would have to ask Turbine about that.

Indeed.

Well, Turbine, how about it, then?

[slarden]

You would have to ask Turbine about that.

Indeed.

Well, Turbine, how about it, then?

These are some really good points. It would be great to get some feedback from Turbine.

[Gremmlynn]

If decay is removed and we have a 100% penalty for booting, there is absolutely no incentive to boot. Around 100 small guilds have commented in the decay threads. If anything what I learned is that many small guilds operate much the same way I do. I also have many friends in small guilds and again they operate much the same way our guild does.

It isn't until guilds stop leveling that they start to analyze such things. So why keep decay at all? Is letting all guilds advance without decay a problem worth solving? I don't think so.

As for keeping track of people, no I don't do that. I don't know why anyone would do that. People play at different times and just because they aren't on the few hours I play doesn't mean they aren't on at some other point in the day. If someone was so obsessed with this I think they should consider getting some help.

Less incentive, sure. But you can still have a case where a guild has a member that, for whatever reason, doesn't play enough to earn as much renown as a bigger bonus on the rest of the guilds renown would provide. Whether that's likely to be a problem is questionable, but I have a pet peeve about inaccurate absolute statements. So while there is likely to be little incentive to do so, there isn't "absolutely no incentive to boot".

As for keeping track; Press o->guild tab->click on the words "last on" and it sorts the roster for you. I do it every day on logging in simply to see who's on at that time. But it wouldn't be hard to keep track of who is playing once a week in a small guild as it wasn't hard to boot everyone who hasn't been on for a week, or whatever the established limit was, in a large one.

[slarden]

Less incentive, sure. But you can still have a case where a guild has a member that, for whatever reason, doesn't play enough to earn as much renown as a bigger bonus on the rest of the guilds renown would provide. Whether that's likely to be a problem is questionable, but I have a pet peeve about inaccurate absolute statements. So while there is likely to be little incentive to do so, there isn't "absolutely no incentive to boot".

As for keeping track; Press o->guild tab->click on the words "last on" and it sorts the roster for you. I do it every day on logging in simply to see who's on at that time. But it wouldn't be hard to keep track of who is playing once a week in a small guild as it wasn't hard to boot everyone who hasn't been on for a week, or whatever the established limit was, in a large one.

Sure there are no absolutes. The new system won't stop all booting/shunning of casuals either.

We would be far better off without decay and a 100% booting penalty than we would under the current system. When you look at the problems, it ultimately leads you back to decay. Most guilds don't even look at the mechanics until they stop moving forward and dont' understand why. Without decay people just keep playing and advancing at whatever pace happens. it's much like character leveling. One person caps in a week and another takes 6 months or longer, but nothing is stopping the characters from advancing with a timed daily penalty process. If that existed the casual players that took months to advance would likely never hit 25.

At level 60 under the new system a guild of 10 or less gets 1,655.540 decay a year. To get to level 100 you need 50,000,000. If a guild is stalled around level 60 where it needs 39,200,000 renown to get to level 100, eliminating the 1,614,816 won't be the difference between guilds stalling at 60 or reaching 100 in one year, it will be the difference between a guild stalling at 60 and getting to level 62 within one year. I saw ALL large guilds in Sarlona gain more than that in the last few weeks.

I hope the people arguing against small guilds the same break large guilds got, and Turbine, understand that eliminating decay would at most give small guilds 2-3 EXTRA levels per year for any small guild at level 60 . I just fail to see the benefit of such a restriction when large guilds are able to advance more than that in the past few weeks. There is a mathematical reason for this and I will be happy to show it to you. The bottom line is there is really no good reason for putting a level cap on small guilds in the form of decay.

I think this also shows that Turbine wouldn't put elixir sales at risk by removing decay. Most small guilds will take many years to get to 100 or even 90.

[Dandonk]

Sure there are no absolutes. The new system won't stop all booting/shunning of casuals either.

We would be far better off without decay and a 100% booting penalty than we would under the current system. When you look at the problems, it ultimately leads you back to decay. Most guilds don't even look at the mechanics until they stop moving forward and dont' understand why. Without decay people just keep playing and advancing at whatever pace happens. it's much like character leveling. One person levels in a weeek and another takes 6 months or longer, but nothing is stopping the characters from advancing with a timed daily penalty process. If that existed the casual players that took months to advance would likely never hit 20.

I will have to agree that removing decay will probably stop most of the unfortunate behaviour that led to the recent change. Maybe not all, but it should be close.

The kick penalty, whether 100% or the current one, needs to be addressed at some point and in some form, unless decay goes away, at least. Oh, and level 100 renown would have to be openended, too, or those guilds would wind up in trouble when kicking, too.

[smatt]

So if you have soemone in your guild that turns into a total jerk, crating a 100% removal panalty is fair?

Nope...

Peopel have to come to the conclusion that the system was never meant for or designed so that all guilds could reach 100... Period.. Right or wrong, no matter what your opinion is...

I know life isn't fair... That sign that the doctor was holding when you were born that said it was, was a complete lie...

[slarden]

So if you have soemone in your guild that turns into a total jerk, crating a 100% removal panalty is fair?

Nope...

Peopel have to come to the conclusion that the system was never meant for or designed so that all guilds could reach 100... Period.. Right or wrong, no matter what your opinion is...

I know life isn't fair... That sign that the doctor was holding when you were born that said it was, was a complete lie...

With the 100% penalty the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. That seems fair to me. It's like the person was never in the guild. You think it is fair that a guild kicks a person and then gets to keep 75% of the renown that person earned?

[theslimshady]

With the 100% penalty the guild gains nothing and loses nothing. That seems fair to me. It's like the person was never in the guild. You think it is fair that a guild kicks a person and then gets to keep 75% of the renown that person earned?

yes and i dont see what kicking people has to do with the fixing or removal of decay seems like a bias agenda
if kicking was a negitive issue based on some kinda exploit or something i would like to see data on it
in my personal experience as a leader of a 200 member guild i have maybe had to kick 15 peeps in three years
one of em a long time officer who recently got a divorce went on a binger and started talking vulgarly to some women folk in my guild {some of the things he said where inexcusible } he would have cost me 4 million renown under this idea it was bad enough to lose a million