Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

If you want to be 100 in your little guild...... Then do what the rest of us have been doing since airships came out.... Oh wait you don't WANT to actually do that...... You just want everything handed to you on a little platter.... I want my solo 1-25 to be as easy and fast as a group of 6 can do it... I want to solo every quest in the game as fast as a group of 6 can do it... I want, I want, life isn't fair,.....

I hear they're going to start selling airships in the store though.....

Big one will cost you 500k TPs...

I don't want anything handed to me I simply don't want a decay penalty 10x higher than a member of a large guild. I have no problem earning the renown, but the problem is that 10x more renown is taken away from me in the form of decay (after renown bonus is factored in) than it would if I was in a large guild.

The devs mentioned the problem of "kicking". Since kicking is an issue I would l also like to see a 100% penalty for booting members. Seems like a better solution than making it hard for small gulids to level.

I do solo things from time to time, but more commonly I short-man quests with others in the guild, join or create a pug or run with friends from various guilds. I tend to solo more in the early mornings if I am up because there isn't usually many people on at that time. My guild has 8 it is not a solo guild

[theslimshady]

I am not sure why the high achieveing small guilds were the only ones considered when making this change. As the devs are looking at data I hope they are considering advancement progress by level bands instead of taking an average of all gulds. All new guilds start out as tiny guilds and increase levels rather quickly. Some get bigger and some do not. That would also distort any metrics when looking at advancement progress.

Ironically in the "3 person" example he gives - it is really a guild of 8. The 4 person level 91 guild he uses is a guild of 30. He just thinks if the guild only has 3 on any given time it a 3 person guild.

I agree with many of the points you made in the last few posts. I think it's beneficial for Turbine to support multiple styles of guilding including small groups which make a large percentage of guilds and often took in the players that were booted from large guilds after taking long breaks.

they have by making it where every guild has the same leveling amount needed just like xp and they have by making every guild have the same amount of decay after understanding there stance i see no fairer way to make it where every person counts the exsatc same outside of doing away with guild bonuses
you keep spitting out some non sense but the system is for guilds 1-1000
a guild of 1 needs x amount of renown to level
a guild of 1000 needs x amount of renown to level its the same varible
a guild of one needs to cover x amount of decay
a guild of 1000 needs to cover x amount of decay same varible
in your entire argument you are saying that guild of 1 deserves more because guild of 1000 can cover same amount of decay easier

[slarden]

they have by making it where every guild has the same leveling amount needed just like xp and they have by making every guild have the same amount of decay after understanding there stance i see no fairer way to make it where every person counts the exsatc same outside of doing away with guild bonuses
you keep spitting out some non sense but the system is for guilds 1-1000
a guild of 1 needs x amount of renown to level
a guild of 1000 needs x amount of renown to level its the same varible
a guild of one needs to cover x amount of decay
a guild of 1000 needs to cover x amount of decay same varible
in your entire argument you are saying that guild of 1 deserves more because guild of 1000 can cover same amount of decay easier

I am saying none of this. I am simply saying PLAYER A shouldn't get 10x more decay per day than PLAYER B based soley on the size of their guild. Decay is ultimately a penalty on each player in the guild since each player has to cover the daily decay. If we can't get the decay formula right, we should just get rid of it since we've already elminated 90%+ of the decay for any member of a guild of 200 or more. It really serves no useful purpose at this point.

How would eliminating decay hurt your guild or DDO?

[theslimshady]

I am saying none of this. I am simply saying PLAYER A shouldn't get 10x more decay per day than PLAYER B based soley on the size of their guild. Decay is ultimately a penalty on each player in the guild since each player has to cover the daily decay. If we can't get the decay formula right, we should just get rid of it since we've already elminated 90%+ of the decay for any member of a guild of 200 or more. It really serves no useful purpose at this point.

How would eliminating decay hurt your guild or DDO?

again this i the way your are preceiving whats happening not fact lets look at it in just a small guild veiw
a guild of 1 needs x amount of renown to gain a level
a guild of 24 needs x amount of renown to gain the same level
a guild of 1 needs x amount of renown to cover decay for that level
a guild of 24 needs x amount of renown to cover decay for that same level
outside of elimanating guild size bonuses how do you make this statement more fair then it already is ------- you are tring to call things a decay tax when what you are saying is because they have more people its easier to meet the same varible and they should have it harder or us easier thats seems like more biased to a size then the current system is

decay and level renown gain are the same for every guild 1-1000 members

[eris2323]

If you want to be 100 in your little guild...... Then do what the rest of us have been doing since airships came out.... Oh wait you don't WANT to actually do that...... You just want everything handed to you on a little platter.... I want my solo 1-25 to be as easy and fast as a group of 6 can do it... I want to solo every quest in the game as fast as a group of 6 can do it... I want, I want, life isn't fair,.....

I hear they're going to start selling airships in the store though.....

Big one will cost you 500k TPs...

I know, right?

Agree fully - this seems to be what I get out of their arguments as well.

They don't want to work at it, they just want it.

[eris2323]

Showing that an advantage doesn't exist, an assumption of motivation has no basis in fact and your example of everyone is as inclusive as 1950s Golf clubs is pretty much countered reasonably, yeah. It may be a point of view that it isn't reasonable or based in fact, but needing to be heard as an example of 0 good reasons not to eliminate decay all together or reduce it for everyone and that small guilds aren't sacrificing goats to the horned bonus gods for some kind of "effect others gaming experience with my possible gains for no logical reason" curse.

Making sure that some people have the opportunity to buy a minimum of 10,000 TP worth of astral diamonds for the biggest ship rather than have all people fork out that cash value makes financial sense how?

When the only recent statement put out regarding sizes said there was no intention to promote any size guild, it is important that feedback regarding promoting these sizes, large or small, is on topic an valuable. Illogical "small guilds are evil with their non existent advantage and any reduction for them is like a dagger in my heart" posts from those who have gotten relief fit in this category. No need to point out why they should get a reduction when reasons they shouldn't can be shown to make little or no sense.

Financial sense - the old system had people leaving in droves - casual players were kicked, which made them feel unwelcome, and therefore they left.

Seems to me that's the financial sense, right there. They made a mistake, and misjudged how people would react to the system, and realized that they are persecuting their new players and casual players.

They were losing players - Heck, I know OUR guild was losing players - people specifically told me they didn't want to log in, to start the decay timer again.

So there's your financial sense, right there.

Enjoy!

[Cordovan]

C'mon, folks, behave. Stop with the personal attacks.

[Dandonk]

C'mon, folks, behave. Stop with the personal attacks.

So, since you're here... any news yet?

[Tshober]

again this i the way your are preceiving whats happening not fact lets look at it in just a small guild veiw
a guild of 1 needs x amount of renown to gain a level
a guild of 24 needs x amount of renown to gain the same level
a guild of 1 needs x amount of renown to cover decay for that level
a guild of 24 needs x amount of renown to cover decay for that same level
outside of elimanating guild size bonuses how do you make this statement more fair then it already is ------- you are tring to call things a decay tax when what you are saying is because they have more people its easier to meet the same varible and they should have it harder or us easier thats seems like more biased to a size then the current system is

decay and level renown gain are the same for every guild 1-1000 members

I disagree with many of the things Slarden says. But in this one particular case, I agree with him. Decay is a bad thing because it inherently discriminates against casual/social players and can encourage guilds to shun them, like the old decay system did. It is also bad because it can cause guilds that have casual/social players in them to stagnate and never be able to advance. The new system has effectively eliminated the incentives to shun casual/social players for all guilds. Huge kudos to the devs for accomplishing that with such a simple change. It has also brought relief to many guilds that were stagnated and could not advance, but it has not done that for all guilds. Small and tiny guids that have a significant casual/social membership will still stagnate and be unable to advance. Eliminating decay from the renown picture would make it possible for all guilds to advance and, IMO, that is worth doing. This does not mean that a tiny guild that is mostly casual is going to advance rapidly, only that they will advance eventually.

[Dandonk]

Eliminating decay from the renown picture would make it possible for all guilds to advance and, IMO, that is worth doing. This does not mean that a tiny guild that is mostly casual is going to advance rapidly, only that they will advance eventually.

Very much this.

[Enoach]

Things we know about the current renown system

1. The reduction in the decay was flattened for all guilds.
2. Turbine set a 3 level per day cap
3. Turbine raised the renown drop penalty upon leveling to work with the 3 level per day cap

When working in a FLAT rate system I agree that more hands makes light work. I agree that anyone that was already getting the decay of what the FLAT amount became did not benefit from the change.

So yes I agree that the change did not help everyone.

So now the next ideas needs to do the following:
1. Make it better for those that didn't get a benefit from the recent change
2. Not make any worse off than what they are right now

Focusing on removal penalties and KORTHOSARMY recruiting or trying to argue that small guilds want to earn even less renown to level is simply missing the focus we should be centered on.

For me that focus is simply DECAY, nothing more and nothing less.

All Guilds if they have to have decay wants to be able to not have to play the game focused on how DECAY effects their guild. There are so many other things people enjoy doing in an MMORP other than earning renown. So it is reasonable to see DDO as a social gathering media as well as a game (Of course Turbine does not mind this as long as it still earn money they are a business after all)

What we learned from the old system is that DECAY based on number of accounts is not fair as all accounts are not equal and never can be, because as people we are all different and have different goals, skills and motivations.

I've seen a few interesting suggestions of using amenities and ship to determine decay rate, thus giving a guild control to fluctuate the rate based on activity or Guild Events.

If Turbine changes the decay for small Guilds (Size 10 or less) to also be 90% less this will put Guilds of Size six at almost the same MINIMUM RAW (before size adjustments) renown earning per day per person for 1 level every 30 days as a Guild Size of 36. Currently a guild of 6 MINIMUM RAW renown earnings per day per person for 1 level every 30 days is around the same as a Guild Size of 18.

I think before we can come up with the "Right" number it needs to be defined where the line is on making the 10 and less size guilds equal to WHAT. Personally I think Turbine is going for Size of 20 as it seems the whole renown size (old system) was using this as a minimum anyway. However, only the size 6 and 7 are close to the same as a level 20, 8 to 10 are much better off than 20 and 5 and less are way worse off than any except those with fewer than they have.

So if the balance is to make 10 and less size guilds equal to 20 member guilds than the size multiplier needs to be adjusted to reflect that.

Of course only Turbine could know what they were trying to balance too and what RAW amount of renown they felt the daily average player would be capable of pulling and how long they intended the leveling process to take. All of which could be good information.

So to help contribute to information about how much renown on average I earn per day I've added up my characters total renown (I've been in the same guild since before renown happened). Using 6/28/2010 (Day renown went live) to 11/6/2012 (or 862 days). I play an average of 3 hours per day. I honestly don't know where I fall on the scale am I average? am I more than average? Or do I suck at pulling renown, because it is honestly not my primary focus. I don't farm for it, I don't buy guild renown potions. I have used a couple free ones (One from Raffle and one or two from Chests).

Daily Average: 2,365

I also realize that this amount for members of a small guild will be adjusted based on their guild size which could have fluctuated over the 862 days (or # of days in guild) where renown was possible.

[theslimshady]

I disagree with many of the things Slarden says. But in this one particular case, I agree with him. Decay is a bad thing because it inherently discriminates against casual/social players and can encourage guilds to shun them, like the old decay system did. It is also bad because it can cause guilds that have casual/social players in them to stagnate and never be able to advance. The new system has effectively eliminated the incentives to shun casual/social players for all guilds. Huge kudos to the devs for accomplishing that with such a simple change. It has also brought relief to many guilds that were stagnated and could not advance, but it has not done that for all guilds. Small and tiny guids that have a significant casual/social membership will still stagnate and be unable to advance. Eliminating decay from the renown picture would make it possible for all guilds to advance and, IMO, that is worth doing. This does not mean that a tiny guild that is mostly casual is going to advance rapidly, only that they will advance eventually.

a valid point but i am not sure if i understand or am clear on why guilds would shun cas players /social players based on decay when the option to recruit like minded players is a option and guild size is no longer a factor to decay

[Chaos000]

Now everyone over active size 10 gets an exponentially increasing reduction in the decay / player benchmark system, and small guilds are still stuck with more decay / player than everyone else, compounded and multiplied by others reduction.

A valid temporary fix would be to reduce the decay of everyone under the active size 10 to that of an active size 11 correct? It wouldn't be the desired fix but this way the statement that "everyone" experienced a decay reduction would then be factual.

PS. I wouldn't be opposed to more consistent methods of renown gain in the form renown gain when deconstructing an item (it's like 1-5 xp per deconstructed item?), or a vendor that you can trade plat or event ingredients (motes/crystals/festivault copper-silver-gold) for renown tokens

[slarden]

So now the next ideas needs to do the following:
1. Make it better for those that didn't get a benefit from the recent change
2. Not make any worse off than what they are right now

.

I agree with this - this is essentially my belief as well I don't think we should take away benefits, but rather expand.

Regarding the other stuff, I think it worked both ways. There were many many negative comments about small guilds as well and all the negative comments kept feeding off each other and making all guilds feel they needed to defend their guild size while pointing out that other guild sizes weren't perfect either.

I would love to see a decay holiday for one month to compare that to the previous month under the test system to see if there is a problem with guilds leveling too fast. Without knowing their system at all it seems easy to turn off the decay routine or multiply the end result by 0.

[Dandonk]

I agree with this - this is essentially my belief as well I don't think we should take away benefits, but rather expand.

Yep.

Since decay was all but removed as a consideration for large guilds, I feel it would only be fair to do the same for small guilds.

[eris2323]

Yep.

Since decay was all but removed as a consideration for large guilds, I feel it would only be fair to do the same for small guilds.

To be clear - the only reason decay is not a consideration, as you determine, for large guilds is because large guilds put in the time and effort required to recruit and manage their guilds and become a large guild, which at the time, was almost impossible to do, due to the old system.

In other words, us large guilds worked REALLY hard to get to the point where we have enough players to support casual players.

Tiny guilds seem to me like 1 guy invites a few friends and they want the same consideration as all the work we put into developing and maintaining our large guild - which was a LOT of work.

That is where it seems unfair to us.

[slarden]

To be clear - the only reason decay is not a consideration, as you determine, for large guilds is because large guilds put in the time and effort required to recruit and manage their guilds and become a large guild, which at the time, was almost impossible to do, due to the old system.

In other words, us large guilds worked REALLY hard to get to the point where we have enough players to support casual players.

Tiny guilds seem to me like 1 guy invites a few friends and they want the same consideration as all the work we put into developing and maintaining our large guild - which was a LOT of work.

That is where it seems unfair to us.

That is how all guilds start. 1 person invites a friend. At that point guilds go in different directions but all guilds work hard to get where they are. Small guilds need to earn more renown to level up and pay more for amenities. Large guilds work on recruiting. All guilds help their players and most guilds of all sizes have casual players. Some people are hardcore when they join a guild and become casual due to life events.

[eris2323]

That is how all guilds start. 1 person invites a friend. At that point guilds go in different directions but all guilds work hard to get where they are. Small guilds need to earn more renown to level up and pay more for amenities. Large guilds work on recruiting. All guilds help their players and most guilds of all sizes have casual players. Some people are hardcore when they join a guild and become casual due to life events.

Yes, 1 person invites a friend, then they invite a few more, then a few more...

They don't generally stop at 3 casual players and say that's cool we're good now, and we demand the same consideration as all other large guilds and people who actually did work to recruit up to 20 members.

I guess if you're all okay with getting rid of decay, we can remove all the tiny, small, and medium guild bonus to renown too? Because if they get rid of decay, and they DON'T get rid of the tiny guild bonus to decay - then they're clearly going to switch favor back to small guilds, and they will get yet another uproar on their hands, in the exact reverse.

Not fair to get rid of decay, and yet keep the tiny guild renown bonus. Not fair at all.

[theslimshady]

Yep.

Since decay was all but removed as a consideration for large guilds, I feel it would only be fair to do the same for small guilds.

i think we reached this same idea before but then the issue of fairness came into play if there is no decay then why would we still have guild bonuses what purpose would they serve and how do they make it fair for all guilds

so renown gain would be -
1-24 same amount of renown needed per level +small guild bonus no decay
25-50 same amount of renown needed per level +meduim guild bonus no decay
51-1000 same amount of renown needed per level no bonus no decay

shouldnt it be
1-1000 same amount of renown needed per level no decay

or

1-1000 same amount of renown needed to level decay is same as per level of all guilds which it is currently {and the bonuses are the crutches already }

i am sorry but i do not see how changeing to a no decay varible changes how player a and player b in the same quest pull the same renown token and player a would get more because he is in a smaller number of players in guild and why this is equal in anyway or how this is any different then with decay or not with decay
i

[Chaos000]

Getting rid of the small guild bonus would certainly hurt low level small guilds including all start-ups that little or no decay but need a boost. I am fine if they want to remove the small guild bonus on level 71+ guilds like mine. I think flattening and lowering the bonus ultimately makes the most sense if decay is removed. Perhaps lowering the max bonus to 100% from 300% and getting rid of the bell curved centered at 6.

They could take a page from the previous change and have renown bonus based on guild level regardless of size.