Guild Renown Changes

[DocBenway]

My guild has 10 accounts. If I add one more account will our decay will decrease 80% ? We are close to being at a point where we just can't keep up with decay.

10 accounts is what all decay is based on now. Adding or removing will not affect the total decay. It will decrease decay/person, just like dropping below 10 would increase decay/person.

[Dandonk]

Perhaps they are taking the ostrich approach...

I know games break and blah blah, but this is a point that makes the game unfun.

At the moment they're probably tied up with some of the fun bugs that've cropped up lately, but I'm still hoping they haven't totally forgotten us small guilds.

[Nestroy]

At the moment they're probably tied up with some of the fun bugs that've cropped up lately, but I'm still hoping they haven't totally forgotten us small guilds.

You will be perfectly right with the bug theory. On the other hand, is it really that hard to deactivate the renown decay module all together? OK, without breaking something new?

[eris2323]

Turbine? Are you out there?

Turbine probably realizes that to get a really accurate picture of what's going on in-game, they need to gather data.

I'm guessing this is what they're doing... letting the data gather up so they have some numbers to play with.

Which is a good thing, all in all - it allows them to totally disregard fear-mongers.

Just because a couple of people in small guilds DEMAND an answer and a 'fix' to their perceived problem is no reason that Turbine SHOULD focus on this one small aspect of their game. They have other bugs to fix.

[eris2323]

My guild has 10 accounts. If I add one more account will our decay decrease 80% ? We are close to being at a point where we just can't keep up with decay.

Just in case the poster below this wasn't clear with their answer;

This means that every single person you add now will help your guild, all in all.

Every person you add will reduce the amount of renown that the rest have to gather.

Assuming of course - that the accounts are real, and not just a few peoples free-to-play storage accounts that they never play

[Dandonk]

You will be perfectly right with the bug theory. On the other hand, is it really that hard to deactivate the renown decay module all together? OK, without breaking something new?

I want to say it's not that hard, but... who knows...

[slarden]

You will be perfectly right with the bug theory. On the other hand, is it really that hard to deactivate the renown decay module all together? OK, without breaking something new?

It's hard to say, but I would think they could apply a solution for all guilds just as quickly as they applied a solution that benefited based on guild size.

At this point it's unclear what they are trying to do with the guild system other than make it easy for large guilds to reach levels unattainable for almost all small guilds. They stated they were trying to make it more attractive for large guilds to take on new and casual players, but we see gulds with recruiters, applications, etc. This doesn't really seem like actions designed to recruit new or casual players. If so they would just take anyone without such an approach. On Sarlona, the same 2 large guilds that have always taken in any player that wanted to join are still the only two that I am aware of that will take anyone.

We currently have a leveling system for large guilds and a ranking system for small guilds based on activity level.
It's a highly disfunctional system at the moment. The current system totally forgets about the new or casual players that prefer to be in a small guild or start their own guild.

[Nestroy]

...
It's a highly disfunctional system at the moment. The current system totally forgets about the new or casual players that prefer to be in a small guild or start their own guild.

Slarden, the system always had been in favor of big guilds. That´s why there had been decay, at least as far as I can remember older discussions. Now the small guilds get the boot because they get hit by decay (at least decay / member) much more than big guilds and the system is that much more in favor of big guilds now.

At least with doing away the decay, the system would not give the injustice to the inbalance. Then again, I would strongly favor a system that is better balanced.

If my calculations done in other threads are correct, a guild of 6 active accounts would need a bonus of about 3500 % in order to make good on the big guilds of 300+ (active) players. So the 300 % given at the moment are nothing better than a hollow joke. This even gets worse for guilds of 20 or 30 players...

So balancing a system would be very good - and this might take longer than getting away with the decay all together. And doing away with the decay at least would be a start.

[slarden]

Slarden, the system always had been in favor of big guilds. That´s why there had been decay, at least as far as I can remember older discussions. Now the small guilds get the boot because they get hit by decay (at least decay / member) much more than big guilds and the system is that much more in favor of big guilds now.

At least with doing away the decay, the system would not give the injustice to the inbalance. Then again, I would strongly favor a system that is better balanced.

If my calculations done in other threads are correct, a guild of 6 active accounts would need a bonus of about 3500 % in order to make good on the big guilds of 300+ (active) players. So the 300 % given at the moment are nothing better than a hollow joke. This even gets worse for guilds of 20 or 30 players...

So balancing a system would be very good - and this might take longer than getting away with the decay all together. And doing away with the decay at least would be a start.

I never even looked at the system closely until our guild was hit by the new increased ransack renown penalty that was put in place as part of this change. That is what led me to this thread.

However, after looking at the calculations closely what I found is that the old system did slightly favor small guilds with regards to decay only (not leveling). The guild size was based on min (account size + 10,20) which was a very bad way to factor in the small guild bonus. The formula should have been account size * (1 + guild bonus). If this correct math was used a 6 person guild would have had decay based on 24 and a 300 person guild would have had decay based on 300. A 6 person guild had decay 16% lower than it should have been and a 300 person guild had decay 3% higher than it should have been.

If large guilds had the same effective decay under the old system, we would have seen large guilds plateau slightly higher and small guilds plateau slightly lower.

However unfair that system was, it doesn't even come close to the current system.

[slarden]

Turbine probably realizes that to get a really accurate picture of what's going on in-game, they need to gather data.

I'm guessing this is what they're doing... letting the data gather up so they have some numbers to play with.

Which is a good thing, all in all - it allows them to totally disregard fear-mongers.

Just because a couple of people in small guilds DEMAND an answer and a 'fix' to their perceived problem is no reason that Turbine SHOULD focus on this one small aspect of their game. They have other bugs to fix.

There been around 100 people from small guilds comment on the unfairness of the current system in this thread and two threads in the general discussion topic. It hasn't been a few.

Small guilds should continue to voice their concerns and not be concerned that others mischaracterize their concerns as "fear mongering". Decay is a real problem for small guilds.

[theslimshady]

There been around 100 people from small guilds comment on the unfairness of the current system in this thread and two threads in the general discussion topic. It hasn't been a few.

Small guilds should continue to voice their concerns and not be concerned that others mischaracterize their concerns as "fear mongering". Decay is a real problem for small guilds.

so how many matters when complaining but not in game for you are still tring to say a small guild is the same or should be as a large guild

[Blue100000005]

So i have read conflicting reports.

Is decay based solely on guild level? Or does active membership make it fluctuate?

From what i read the decay is level based ONLY.

[eris2323]

There been around 100 people from small guilds comment on the unfairness of the current system in this thread and two threads in the general discussion topic. It hasn't been a few.

Small guilds should continue to voice their concerns and not be concerned that others mischaracterize their concerns as "fear mongering". Decay is a real problem for small guilds.

Arguing non-stop about the same thing repeatedly won't do anything either.

There's this thing call patience.

You might try it someday.

Not like the devs are working on anything else, like, oh, say, fixing the lfm bug, the new enhancement system, or anything else.

You demand a fix for this one tiny aspect; you threaten turbine with your sig that you have stopped buying renown potions, and you misrepresent opinions and guesses as 'fact'.

Seriously. Try patience. None of your other bazillion tactics have worked, so what have you got to lose?

[Tshober]

So i have read conflicting reports.

Is decay based solely on guild level? Or does active membership make it fluctuate?

From what i read the decay is level based ONLY.

Yes, you are correct. Only guild level matters now. All guilds of the same level get exactly the same decay amount regardless of their size. The only thing that is affected by guild size now is the small guild bonuses on renown earned, which are still in effect.

[Blue100000005]

Yes, you are correct. Only guild level matters now. All guilds of the same level get exactly the same decay amount regardless of their size. The only thing that is affected by guild size now is the small guild bonuses on renown earned, which are still in effect.

To me it seems as though it is a flat tax, but applied to a group. If it were applied ONLY to each player it would be fair, but to apply it across the spectrum without a membership qualifier is wrong. Either it should go back to size based penalties or should be abolished completely.

[Dandonk]

To me it seems as though it is a flat tax, but applied to a group. If it were applied ONLY to each player it would be fair, but to apply it across the spectrum without a membership qualifier is wrong. Either it should go back to size based penalties or should be abolished completely.

While I agree that this was a fair way to go about it, in practice it had the unfortunate sie-effect of leaders of large guilds kicking casual players from their guilds. Thus, this change was made.

But I do agree that decay shoul just be done away with. As it stands, it's only a consideration for small guilds. Since it does not seem that Turbine thinks that decay is needed for all guilds, why is it needed for ANY guilds? Let's just get rid of it.

[blerkington]

Hi,

I'm in a solo guild, which is currently level 53 with only one account. There are two things that bother me about the current decay system, as it affects me and people in my situation.

Firstly, decay is higher than it used to be, meaning that if I don't play for any period of time there is a noticeable effect. It's not so bad now, but my goal is to make it to 62, which under the current system I think will mean a daily decay of around 6700 points.

Although I play every day, it will be hard for me even to tread water with that amount of decay if I have some slow nights. I like slowly building up my guild, but aside from taking renown as an end reward for the quests I do, I don't want to farm renown actively just to stay ahead.

Secondly, I mainly play one toon. Renown comes in steadily when I'm relevelling after a TR, but if I spend much time at Level 25 in endgame, the renown I receive for running many quests tapers off noticeably. If I want to continue to earn renown at cap, my choice of quests which offer decent amounts isn't very large.

I'm not particularly wedded to the small guild bonus, but I don't want to be in a situation where I can't be at cap for an extended period of time, or can't take time off from the game without losing guild levels.

It seems arbitrary and unfair to me that decay for my guild is calculated as if I had ten members, especially when rather than putting in only some part of the work to level my guild, I do it all by myself. I don't have anyone else carrying me upwards, nor do I want that.

So what I would like to see is decay either reduced or removed for guilds my size, even if it is at the expense of the small guild bonus, or for there to be a mechanism for locking my guild at a certain level, so there is neither decay nor any renown increase. Both of those would do a lot to help with the two problems I've described.

Thanks.

[Dandonk]

Renown comes in steadily when I'm relevelling after a TR, but if I spend much time at Level 25 in endgame, the renown I receive for running many quests tapers off noticeably. If I want to continue to earn renown at cap, my choice of quests which offer decent amounts isn't very large.

This is another issue that really needs to be looked at. Some epic quests hand out great renown... but some give nothing at all.

Thank you for coming in and leaving a comment, Blerkington. Hopefully Turbine will listen some day.

[GrimGus]

get rid of the decay.
i don't care how high another guild gets thier level. i hope they get 100. mine is a small guild, and the decay is bs. it serves no purpose. if a guild gets to level 75 good for them. why should it be taken back the next day because no one logs in? why would someone in a level 75 guild of 300 accouts, care what level my guild is of 6 accounts is? does it matter why i chose to be in a small?
i don't under stand the arguments for keeping decay at all.

[Tshober]

Hi,

I'm in a solo guild, which is currently level 53 with only one account. There are two things that bother me about the current decay system, as it affects me and people in my situation.

Firstly, decay is higher than it used to be, meaning that if I don't play for any period of time there is a noticeable effect. .

For all guilds with more than 10 players, decay was reduced. For guilds with less than 10 players, like yours, decay did not change at all.

This has been pointed out many, many times in this and other threads and still people continue to get it wrong.

Secondly, I mainly play one toon. Renown comes in steadily when I'm relevelling after a TR, but if I spend much time at Level 25 in endgame, the renown I receive for running many quests tapers off noticeably. If I want to continue to earn renown at cap, my choice of quests which offer decent amounts isn't very large.

Yes, MotU was a real renown killer. Leveling beyond 20 will seriously impact the renown a character generates from just playing the game normally. This is nothing new though. Newer DDO content has been seriously renown-deficient for years.

So what I would like to see is decay either reduced or removed for guilds my size, even if it is at the expense of the small guild bonus, or for there to be a mechanism for locking my guild at a certain level, so there is neither decay nor any renown increase. Both of those would do a lot to help with the two problems I've described.

I would like to see decay eliminated entirely, so on that point we agree.