Guild Renown Changes

[Dandonk]

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.

Except that the increased ransack does lead to less renown gain for small guilds. But decay in itself is said not to have changed, yes.

[Tshober]

Except that the increased ransack does lead to less renown gain for small guilds. But decay in itself is said not to have changed, yes.

I agree that the ransack impact on renown earned should be looked at. If it exceeds the small guild bonuses and it is implemented in such a way that it is possilbe to get into a "loop" that causes the guild to drop and gain a level constantly every day, then some fix would be appropriate.

[Dandonk]

I agree that the ransack impact on renown earned should be looked at. If it exceeds the small guild bonuses and it is implemented in such a way that it is possilbe to get into a "loop" that causes the guild to drop and gain a level constantly every day, then some fix would be appropriate.

Well, that's what happens to my own guild at the moment, anyway.

But I think we still both agree that decay should just be done away with

[slarden]

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.

/Signed

We were hit with decay 4 times on Saturday and Sunday due to 2 restarts. Regardless of the Turbine statement, it was a full day's decay each time. This would barely be noticable for a large guild that can gain 10 levels in a few months under the current system with no effort. For a small guild like mine that takes renown for an end reward always to try and level - it's a killer.

The same people that are now arguing to keep decay were previously arguing to get rid of decay when it was a problem for their guild. The reason is quite simple. They want to recruit vets from small guilds that are frustrated that their guild can't level while large guilds can get to 100 easy. It means more people for guild-only runs and less people joining pug raids and involved in public channels.

[Nestroy]

/Signed

We were hit with decay 4 times on Saturday and Sunday due to 2 restarts. Regardless of the Turbine statement, it was a full day's decay each time. This would barely be noticable for a large guild that can gain 10 levels in a few months under the current system with no effort. For a small guild like mine that takes renown for an end reward always to try and level - it's a killer.

The same people that are now arguing to keep decay were previously arguing to get rid of decay when it was a problem for their guild. The reason is quite simple. They want to recruit vets from small guilds that are frustrated that their guild can't level while large guilds can get to 100 easy. It means more people for guild-only runs and less people joining pug raids and involved in public channels.

/signed

sometimes I get the impression turbine does make good for this by doling out renown trophies like crazy after restart (restart of ransack???) but not this Sunday, sadly.

[blerkington]

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.

Hi,

You're welcome. There was a measure of self interest in me posting here, but I also have sympathy for other people suffering the same problem. And I am glad the people in larger guilds got a break so their fight against decay is not as bad as it used to be.

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.

Yes, so this thread appears to suggest. However, at some point, possibly earlier than the recent changes, there was a change to decay. When I started levelling my guild I used the information on the DDOwiki to calculate decay for a guild with one account and it appeared to be accurate then. It no longer is.

Anyway, thanks to both of you, and to the other people in this thread for contributing. Hopefully now that this is finally being looked at we will get some more changes to help everyone, not just people in larger guilds.

Thanks.

[DocBenway]

Hi,
However, at some point, possibly earlier than the recent changes, there was a change to decay. When I started levelling my guild I used the information on the DDOwiki to calculate decay for a guild with one account and it appeared to be accurate then. It no longer is.

It was noticed by the playerbase and asked about, without reply, in February. The wiki formula was adjusted to show minimum size 10 shortly after that. If you look at the beginning of this thread, you'll even see a dev using a size 6 in an example, being asked if that was real 6 or minimum Ten 6, they apologized and mentioned using 6 as an example for "small" but never clarified the formula or the minimum.

The shroud of secrecy, where even its mechanics discovered by player testing are never confirmed, is an oft cited problem with the whole system.

[jhadden30]

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?

Comment responses that involve talking to people like they are 4 year olds aren't helping anything either.

[blerkington]

It was noticed by the playerbase and asked about, without reply, in February. The wiki formula was adjusted to show minimum size 10 shortly after that. If you look at the beginning of this thread, you'll even see a dev using a size 6 in an example, being asked if that was real 6 or minimum Ten 6, they apologized and mentioned using 6 as an example for "small" but never clarified the formula or the minimum.

The shroud of secrecy, where even its mechanics discovered by player testing are never confirmed, is an oft cited problem with the whole system.

Hi,

Thanks for that. I thought there had been a change but I wasn't sure when it occurred. Glad I wasn't imagining it or it wasn't a problem with my calculations.

Take care.

[Nestroy]

Since this is the guild renown rant thread, I will do my 25ct here:

Renown reward balancing in game / after quests need a look and some love as well - and not for nerfing the thing, but for doing away with some gross inbalances!

+ Renown ransack in end rewards. If I do quests on level (!!!) even if hard or elite (e.g. lv. 2 quest on elite = lv. 4, toon lv. 4), the first time with luck I get the legendary victory. Second time I get the heroic deeds if anything at all. On epic elite I get the boot and no renown at all. Mind you, on level. Epic this means I have to run the content on EE to get renown at all, and then I get heroic deeds at best. Epic elite - heck we are talking about f... epic elite and the reward list gives me heroic (!) deeds???

+ Renown / quest duration. On low levels I can do Haverdasher with a lv. 1 guild renown farming toon (good gear, 32pt build) on elite in about 1 minute and 10 seconds. For this I get the chance on 2 chests (+renown) and a end reward list with at least heroic deeds. This quest gets run 8 times any farm run. Best renown / minute. The New Ringleader and Durks are the next best choices, until Stormreaver Fresco is available at lv. 2. A good farming toon nets me about 100k renown for small guild with 6 accounts max bonus + 3 hour pot. Zonixx even was better with some 120k in 3 hours. On my current 9 accounts guild I farm about 60-70k, which is due to less bonus, but ok.
Now my main toon is epic and I can run most quests on EH solo on level or a dip below. Average time about 20-30 minutes (house of rusted blades somewhat faster, 3 minutes?). And with the exception of HoRB where I do understand that I do not get the big time renown, all I get are random gen loot lists without renown? Really WAI???

+ Challenges - I will never ever run a challenge again. At least as long as the boxes looted from the bosses do not contain renown or at least a chance for renown. I would not mind if this is mostly heroic deeds. Heck, these challenges, some can be run in 5 minutes. I do not expect more than a heroic deeds for something like this. But no renown at all? what about challenges that take at least 15 or 20 minutes?

With decay in effect for small guilds, there are simply quests / challenges that doing would hurt the guild. Simple as that.

[Blue100000005]

Since this is the guild renown rant thread, I will do my 25ct here:

Renown reward balancing in game / after quests need a look and some love as well - and not for nerfing the thing, but for doing away with some gross inbalances!

+ Renown ransack in end rewards. If I do quests on level (!!!) even if hard or elite (e.g. lv. 2 quest on elite = lv. 4, toon lv. 4), the first time with luck I get the legendary victory. Second time I get the heroic deeds if anything at all. On epic elite I get the boot and no renown at all. Mind you, on level. Epic this means I have to run the content on EE to get renown at all, and then I get heroic deeds at best. Epic elite - heck we are talking about f... epic elite and the reward list gives me heroic (!) deeds???

+ Renown / quest duration. On low levels I can do Haverdasher with a lv. 1 guild renown farming toon (good gear, 32pt build) on elite in about 1 minute and 10 seconds. For this I get the chance on 2 chests (+renown) and a end reward list with at least heroic deeds. This quest gets run 8 times any farm run. Best renown / minute. The New Ringleader and Durks are the next best choices, until Stormreaver Fresco is available at lv. 2. A good farming toon nets me about 100k renown for small guild with 6 accounts max bonus + 3 hour pot. Zonixx even was better with some 120k in 3 hours. On my current 9 accounts guild I farm about 60-70k, which is due to less bonus, but ok.
Now my main toon is epic and I can run most quests on EH solo on level or a dip below. Average time about 20-30 minutes (house of rusted blades somewhat faster, 3 minutes?). And with the exception of HoRB where I do understand that I do not get the big time renown, all I get are random gen loot lists without renown? Really WAI???

+ Challenges - I will never ever run a challenge again. At least as long as the boxes looted from the bosses do not contain renown or at least a chance for renown. I would not mind if this is mostly heroic deeds. Heck, these challenges, some can be run in 5 minutes. I do not expect more than a heroic deeds for something like this. But no renown at all? what about challenges that take at least 15 or 20 minutes?

With decay in effect for small guilds, there are simply quests / challenges that doing would hurt the guild. Simple as that.

I have NEVER got a legendary from all my running, if you are getting them at that low level just be happy...

And where is the fun in the game if you can never advance past lvl6-9 due to lower level being able to farm renown? DDO is making people quit because of renown decay that does not allow for them to do anything but.

I have many higher level toons also, that never get touched cause they can maybe get some renown in the hour long quests or i can pull tons of heroic deeds from lvl 3 characters. remove the decay and that will solve far more than any other problems it will create.

[psykopeta]

nobody is leaving ddo cause the renown system LOL

don't lie yourself

it's not the best idea for the renown? you're right

but i would rather more fixing bugs and less guilds at lvl 100 (in fact, there were more posts about renown than bugs, so we should thank them for it)

[Nestroy]

I have NEVER got a legendary from all my running, if you are getting them at that low level just be happy...

Since this is all top secret with how Turbine doles out guild renown for quests, I cannot say for sure, but...

... running quests on hard or elite and under level has a higher chance to get an impressive trophy or even very occasional legendary victory. On heroic levels / end reward list for the first 8 runs (toon level < quest level) I always get at least heroic deeds. On epic I get the one special digit on every hand for the 2nd or further runs (toon lv. < quest level).
... shortmaning raids on level or below level seems to have the same effect.
... after server restarts there seems to be more renown to earn from chests / endreward lists. A renown reset?
... running quests on normal seems to produce tales of victory at best, independent from toon level vs. quest level. Casual I do have very low experience to say anything on renown.
... soloing quests for me produced the best results.
... the one solo quest at lv. 19 has a lot of renown giving chests for toons of lv. 18 or below - please do not nerf, this is one of the sole quests to give really good renown on that level and the quest chests are easily ransacked anyway.
... frankly, in regard of guild renown any of the Eveningstar quests on heroic levels stink: End lists usually are devoid of guild renown at all and the chests usually give meagre tales at best and often do not give any renown anyway.

[Chaos000]

The same people that are now arguing to keep decay were previously arguing to get rid of decay when it was a problem for their guild. The reason is quite simple. They want to recruit vets from small guilds that are frustrated that their guild can't level while large guilds can get to 100 easy. It means more people for guild-only runs and less people joining pug raids and involved in public channels.

The real reason is likely that the large guilds were losing vets – that were frustrated that their guild were unable to level without jettisoning any member (that went on vacation, took a break, was called for active duty, got a significant other) did not pull their own weight -- to small guilds that could get to 100 by keeping their roster only open to these frustrated hyper active vets AND additionally take advantage of the small renown bonus. Since the change, some of these vets have chosen to rejoin their old guild or join a larger guild because they could now still achieve 100 due to the decay no longer being assessed “per account”.

Is it fair to assess decay per account? The argument implies that it was the intended mechanic for guilds to be penalized for not booting players that did not pull their own weight. In the new system of assessing decay based on level and not size, a guild is not penalized per account. It is almost always more beneficial to add another player (due to it no longer resulting in MORE decay) even at the loss of the guild renown size bonus. For nearly all guilds there is no longer a benefit for a guild to boot a player from their roster.

If you divided the total decay by each individual member, of course the large guilds being penalized the most under the old system is likely to benefit the most in the new system. Guilds of 10 or under feel underappreciated because they did not receive an equitable benefit (of guilds with 500+ accounts) from this change and will continue to feel at a disadvantage unless they increase in size. It is now perceived to be a penalty for smaller guilds to NOT actively recruit new players.

Again the problem is because it’s a guild ranking system (where decay makes sense) and not a guild leveling system (where decay doesn’t make sense)… not everyone is expected to be *able* to hit the max level.

For a hypothetical example: a guild of 80 members with only 10 active members and the other 40+ members logging in at least once a month contribute in total a renown gain of 5 active players will hit a guild level the same ceiling that a smaller guild that has the equivalent renown gain of 15 active members.

I would be ok with a guild *leveling* system but not everyone would agree. If there was a way for a guild to have the *OPTION* to remove themselves from the ranked system and choose instead to be part of a (no bonus, no decay, everyone hits 100 eventually) leveling system (perhaps remove the guild level under the guild name?), this would benefit guilds that would like the highest level of guild buffs without the reputation side of it while not cheapening the reputation maintained by guilds that prefer the ranked system to prove that they’ve accomplished something in game. I can guarantee that there would be more money spent overall in the DDO store because renown pots would now have a lasting effect for players who form solo guilds with silly names i.e. Character name: Squirrel; Guild name: Check out my nuts. Players would likely park a character or two in a friend’s leveling guild while keeping their main in their primary ranked guild.

[Dandonk]

Please, Turbine, just remove decay already. You obviously don't think it's an important mechanic anyway (since it's been nearly removed for large guilds), so why not go the entire step and just remove it?

[slarden]

The real reason is likely that the large guilds were losing vets – that were frustrated that their guild were unable to level without jettisoning any member (that went on vacation, took a break, was called for active duty, got a significant other) did not pull their own weight -- to small guilds that could get to 100 by keeping their roster only open to these frustrated hyper active vets AND additionally take advantage of the small renown bonus. Since the change, some of these vets have chosen to rejoin their old guild or join a larger guild because they could now still achieve 100 due to the decay no longer being assessed “per account”.

Is it fair to assess decay per account? The argument implies that it was the intended mechanic for guilds to be penalized for not booting players that did not pull their own weight. In the new system of assessing decay based on level and not size, a guild is not penalized per account. It is almost always more beneficial to add another player (due to it no longer resulting in MORE decay) even at the loss of the guild renown size bonus. For nearly all guilds there is no longer a benefit for a guild to boot a player from their roster.

If you divided the total decay by each individual member, of course the large guilds being penalized the most under the old system is likely to benefit the most in the new system. Guilds of 10 or under feel underappreciated because they did not receive an equitable benefit (of guilds with 500+ accounts) from this change and will continue to feel at a disadvantage unless they increase in size. It is now perceived to be a penalty for smaller guilds to NOT actively recruit new players.

Again the problem is because it’s a guild ranking system (where decay makes sense) and not a guild leveling system (where decay doesn’t make sense)… not everyone is expected to be *able* to hit the max level.

For a hypothetical example: a guild of 80 members with only 10 active members and the other 40+ members logging in at least once a month contribute in total a renown gain of 5 active players will hit a guild level the same ceiling that a smaller guild that has the equivalent renown gain of 15 active members.

I would be ok with a guild *leveling* system but not everyone would agree. If there was a way for a guild to have the *OPTION* to remove themselves from the ranked system and choose instead to be part of a (no bonus, no decay, everyone hits 100 eventually) leveling system (perhaps remove the guild level under the guild name?), this would benefit guilds that would like the highest level of guild buffs without the reputation side of it while not cheapening the reputation maintained by guilds that prefer the ranked system to prove that they’ve accomplished something in game. I can guarantee that there would be more money spent overall in the DDO store because renown pots would now have a lasting effect for players who form solo guilds with silly names i.e. Character name: Squirrel; Guild name: Check out my nuts. Players would likely park a character or two in a friend’s leveling guild while keeping their main in their primary ranked guild.

Quite frankly there is no value in a ranking system that makes it easy for one guild to reach 100 and impossible for others.

The original vision of Turbine was to allow guilds of all sizes an equal chance to attain levels since in-game benefits such as ship buffs were part of the system. This needs to be revisited as the current system is completely out of balance.

The obvious answer here is to simply remove decay. All the arguments for keeping decay seem very flawed.

[Chaos000]

Quite frankly there is no value in a ranking system that makes it easy for one guild to reach 100 and impossible for others.

I can agree with that. The old system made it easy for a smaller guild to reach 100 and impossible in comparison for larger guilds. The largest guild to achieve lvl 100 is arguably much smaller than 500+ accounts.

The original vision of Turbine was to allow guilds of all sizes an equal chance to attain levels since in-game benefits such as ship buffs were part of the system. This needs to be revisited as the current system is completely out of balance.

Not sure if I agree with this. I fully believe it was the intention of Turbine to have a guild ranking system with an expectation that everyone will not be able to hit the max level and a non-active guild would find themselves declining in levels due to decay. the ship buffs were part of the system to make it desirable to attain levels and maintain them to keep the buffs. Because decay scaled up per player guilds that accepted less active players were penalized, and expulsion along with exclusion was an activity that paid off for guild leaders to advance in levels.

The obvious answer here is to simply remove decay. All the arguments for keeping decay seem very flawed.

Perhaps it would be in Turbine's best interest to allow guilds of all sizes an equal chance to attain levels. Removal of decay will without a doubt turn the system into a guild leveling system instead of a guild ranking system.

They could do that and make renown a form of guild currency for guild buffs (timed duration = continuous need to keep gaining renown?). This way a large bank of renown at max level still has worth but now you could regulate how much is spent.

[slarden]

Not sure if I agree with this. I fully believe it was the intention of Turbine to have a guild ranking system with an expectation that everyone will not be able to hit the max level and a non-active guild would find themselves declining in levels due to decay. the ship buffs were part of the system to make it desirable to attain levels and maintain them to keep the buffs. Because decay scaled up per player guilds that accepted less active players were penalized, and expulsion along with exclusion was an activity that paid off for guild leaders to advance in levels..

We are actually not disagreeing

It was a ranking system with decay as the resistance mechanism. However, the system was size-neutral with the exception of one glitch which slightly favored small guilds: the # of accounts formula which was accounts + 10 and should have been accounts * (1 + guild bonus). If this formula was in place, it would have been a mathematically equal system. However, the reality is that all large guilds and most tiny/small/medium guilds had no chance of ever hitting 100 due to the high activity level requirement.

Small guilds also accept less active player which is why most small gulids are below the level of your typical large guild - even before the change.

On Sarlona the levels gains by large guilds has been very significant. I think they have more than enough data now to realize this. It will be interesting to see how and when they correct the current balance issue.

[Blue100000005]

Perhaps it would be in Turbine's best interest to allow guilds of all sizes an equal chance to attain levels. Removal of decay will without a doubt turn the system into a guild leveling system instead of a guild ranking system.

They could do that and make renown a form of guild currency for guild buffs (timed duration = continuous need to keep gaining renown?). This way a large bank of renown at max level still has worth but now you could regulate how much is spent.

.
That seems as thought it would be more convoluted and difficult to maintain then the current system. Also instantly seems again to favor larger guilds.



Its simple. Take the decay system and delete it. Let the guilds level as they may from renown. There is no need to have only a few guilds at lvl 100. That is like saying only 5 people can have a lvl 20 character. If we are putting int he time dont steal it from us and take it based on some hokey math and rolling some bones for ideas...

[Gremmlynn]

Since this is all top secret with how Turbine doles out guild renown for quests, I cannot say for sure, but...

... running quests on hard or elite and under level has a higher chance to get an impressive trophy or even very occasional legendary victory. On heroic levels / end reward list for the first 8 runs (toon level < quest level) I always get at least heroic deeds. On epic I get the one special digit on every hand for the 2nd or further runs (toon lv. < quest level).
... shortmaning raids on level or below level seems to have the same effect.
... after server restarts there seems to be more renown to earn from chests / endreward lists. A renown reset?
... running quests on normal seems to produce tales of victory at best, independent from toon level vs. quest level. Casual I do have very low experience to say anything on renown.
... soloing quests for me produced the best results.
... the one solo quest at lv. 19 has a lot of renown giving chests for toons of lv. 18 or below - please do not nerf, this is one of the sole quests to give really good renown on that level and the quest chests are easily ransacked anyway.
... frankly, in regard of guild renown any of the Eveningstar quests on heroic levels stink: End lists usually are devoid of guild renown at all and the chests usually give meagre tales at best and often do not give any renown anyway.

I really believe you are over thinking how much "secret" code was written around how renown is distributed. Most likely it is much simpler that this.