Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

The "Typical DDO new or casual", whatever that is, probably shouldnt be running quests on Elite without knowing what lies ahead.

I understand turbine has incentivized Elite to the point where thats difficult for some folks to resists.

DOesnt change the fact that Elite should indeed be too hard for inexperienced new players to complete the first time through.

I can assure you though, as the leader of a "Large" guild that certainly had its complaints on the old system, that our complains had nothing to do with 30pt resist shrines and +2 stat buffs...

Then why do you care about level? And why is it ok for those of you in large guilds to get your ships and buffs and not those folks in struggling small guilds?

The people in your guild will have no problem with the electric damage in the jungle of khyber end fight because they have the resists. That was the only thing stopping us when we were new players. If we had the 30 resist shrines it wouldn't have been a problem.

[Hendrik]

If a 1-man guild "can" do it, why should a 100 account guild have it 66 times easier per player? Why does simply being in a large guild entitle you to work so much less for the same rewards?

Yes, some insanely active/grindy/whatever people can do it. Why should small guilds have to be grindy when large guilds don't?

Turbine's original vision was that there should be room for all of us, large and small. I don't understand what's so bad about that.

More people working toward a project goal is easier to achieve then less people. It is really that simple. 100 people are going to get things done faster then 10. 6 people are going to get a quest done faster the 1.

No offense, why is that so hard to understand?

[slarden]

Go back, read again. Comprehend what I was/am saying.

Read it slowly if needed.

So, a Large Guild has made 11 levels in 4 months of play. How many of them use pots? How many members online and for how long? More people online, more renown gained. Inverse is also true.

How large is your Guild? How many members online and for how long? What is your renown number, right now? Let's see that and look again in a week. A month. Four months.

Everyone, I do not wish to sound argumentative or hostile. Apology if I do. This is a sensative subject for us all as we all love our guilds and the members within. There will be NO easy solution to be fair - as someone, someplace will do things better or worse then the person next to them.

ALL Guilds should be able to advance. Even if that advancement is 1 point over decay. No Guild should stagnate, unless activity drops below daily decay amount. You MUST be active to advance, large or small.

I do find it odd however, that small guilds claim unfair when a 1-man guild can still advance daily past daily decay amounts. How is that???

/respect

And if the people in a large guild were as active as the one person they would also advance to 100. The old system was all about activity level per player. The fact that can it be done doesn't change anything as it represents far less than 1% of the small guild population and most people can't dedicate that amount of time to the game. Large guilds don't have to so why should small guilds?

A person in a high level small guild I run with from time to time did give me some advice on how to move our guild level up faster after seeing some of my posts on the forum:

1) dump less active players and replace them with more active players or dual boxing accounts
2) stop putting up lfms for quests and solo/zerg everything
3) run quests that drop high renown with a dual box account to get double the renown while adding just a little bit of time but far less than forming parties as I used to always do

#2 and #3 does work based on the last few months of experience, but I won't drop players regardless. So #1 is out for me. It likely would work for other small guilds that don't mind doing it. Effectively it's the same thing large guilds were doing. Dropping non-renown generators and adding renown generators. I won't do it, but I am sure other small guilds will.

Decay serves no useful purpose under the current system. If decay was removed entirely a small guild that was stalled at level 60 would gain 2 levels in a full year (I can give you the math to back that up and already have in previous posts). Another level 60 large guild that was stalled at 60 just gained 11 levels in a few months. Removing renown would allow them to gain maybe one extra level per year beyond what they can already gain.

So I have to ask why are people that were previously in favor of eliminating decay suddenly in favor of decay now that it is only a problem for small guilds?

Why does Turbine development care that a small guild that is stalled at level 60 can now gain 2 levels in a full year but they don't mind a large guild that was also stalled at 60 gaining 11 levels in a few months?

Please remember that those of us in small guilds love our guilds too. We've been very respectful considering how bad the system is for us. We would just like this issue to be addressed as it was for large guilds.

[Hendrik]

Then why do you care about level? And why is it ok for those of you in large guilds to get your ships and buffs and not those folks in struggling small guilds?

The people in your guild will have no problem with the electric damage in the jungle of khyber end fight because they have the resists. That was the only thing stopping us when we were new players. If we had the 30 resist shrines it wouldn't have been a problem.

Sorry, but eVoN3 was/is completed without ship buffs. Player skill or advance knowledge is the only barrier.

What is your Guild slarden on Live? Would liek to see real numbers on your 'stalling' and how much you gain per day/week/month.

[Dandonk]

More people working toward a project goal is easier to achieve then less people. It is really that simple. 100 people are going to get things done faster then 10. 6 people are going to get a quest done faster the 1.

No offense, why is that so hard to understand?

Because that wasn't how the system was designed to start with, and wasn't part of the goals either.

I don't understand why simply choosing a different social option than me should allow you such huge benefits. Under the new system, a player in a small guild is less worth than a player in a large guild. This feels unfair to me - and to Vargouille, too, from how I read his post.

[Dandonk]

Yes and those people also pay more tax (aka decay) than the small project. The issue here isn't that we advance slower, it's that we pay a huge tax/person in the form of decay on top of that.

In case I'm unclear - this. Yes, we have to work longer to level up. That's OK. But why should we, on TOP of that, pay higher renown tax, and thus cap out at a lower level than a large guild?

[Impaqt]

Then why do you care about level? And why is it ok for those of you in large guilds to get your ships and buffs and not those folks in struggling small guilds?

we didnt care about "Level" we cared about not being able to progress. We cared about the fact that in order to progress, we would be forced to boot "casual" gamers from out guild.

We decided not to do that so we got stagnated at l78 eve though we were indeed a very active guild.

The people in your guild will have no problem with the electric damage in the jungle of khyber end fight because they have the resists. That was the only thing stopping us when we were new players. If we had the 30 resist shrines it wouldn't have been a problem.

Apparently you decided to do the quest without someone who could cast resists.
you also didnt care to loot 20 or 30 point resist items.
you also didnt care to take UMD as a skill so you could use wands.

again. that quest has been around since WELL before ship buffs. Its been nerfed several times as well. its absolutely completable, at level, without ship buffs.

Fact is, if you struggle through that quest, you will most likely die at least once before the end fight or even spend more than 1 hour in there anyway. You wouldnt have your buffs to rely on.

[Hendrik]

Why does Turbine development care that a small guild that is stalled at level 60 can now gain 2 levels in a full year but they don't mind a large guild that was also stalled at 60 gaining 11 levels in a few months?

So, your saying that your L60 Guild, with the Small Guild Bonus of +70.59% cannot overcome a daily decay rate of 4536???????



What are those 25 accounts doing everyday?

[Dandonk]

we didnt care about "Level" we cared about not being able to progress. We cared about the fact that in order to progress, we would be forced to boot "casual" gamers from out guild.

Hmm, ok. That sounds to me like caring about levels.

Small guilds are now forced to change to accomodate the new system. And in some cases cannibalized by larger guilds, leaving even smaller guilds with larger issues in the wake. That is also a bad consequence, IMO.

[Hendrik]

In case I'm unclear - this. Yes, we have to work longer to level up. That's OK. But why should we, on TOP of that, pay higher renown tax, and thus cap out at a lower level than a large guild?

Your so called 'tax' is off set by size bonus.

Maybe it is the size bonus that needs adjustment at the top end of the chart?

I would also suggest people stop looking at thier members as a detriment to guild advancement and look at them as an asset. I know if my guild members thought such things of me I would not be inclined to help move the guild forward, let alone be a member.

[Hendrik]

Yes and those people also pay more tax (aka decay) than the small project. The issue here isn't that we advance slower, it's that we pay a huge tax/person in the form of decay on top of that.

Stop thinking of your members as a tax to your guild.

Next, it is the guild size bonus that needs adjusting, if anything, at the top end of the chart.

I still say that if a L60 guild with 25 accounts cannot overcome 4500 daily decay with +70% size bonus, the fault is not totally with Turbine and decay.

I said totally for those that want to skip over that part. Adjustment of the size bonus slightly upward at the high end of the scale would be in order to help those that cannot seem to get some 2500 base renown a day.

[Hendrik]

Hmm, ok. That sounds to me like caring about levels.

Small guilds are now forced to change to accomodate the new system. And in some cases cannibalized by larger guilds, leaving even smaller guilds with larger issues in the wake. That is also a bad consequence, IMO.

I would leave a guild too if they though of my membership as a tax or detriment to guild advancement, just sayin.

Small guilds are not more reliant on thier members to advance then the size bonus.

[Dandonk]

Your so called 'tax' is off set by size bonus.

Maybe it is the size bonus that needs adjustment at the top end of the chart?

I would also suggest people stop looking at thier members as a detriment to guild advancement and look at them as an asset. I know if my guild members thought such things of me I would not be inclined to help move the guild forward, let alone be a member.

Even a 50 account guild has it more than twice as easy beating decay tax than a 6 person max guild bonus guild.

I'm not sure what the last part has to do with anything - well, except that it was exactly that way some large guilds behaved before.

[Chaos000]

The people in your guild will have no problem with the electric damage in the jungle of khyber end fight because they have the resists. That was the only thing stopping us when we were new players. If we had the 30 resist shrines it wouldn't have been a problem.

Honestly it's not just resists, it's gear itemization, strategy, and foreknowledge of the content that helps the most.

You can go into the jungle of khyber end fight and succeed with absolutely no resist AND still succeed. It will take longer (i.e. hide far enough back near the 2 earth elementals to avoid lightning trap, cast protection from evil (to avoid greater command) + DR breaking ranged weapon [chaotic+construct bane] with sufficient dps to exceed the minor regen + kiting with haste potions to stay out of range of his attacks) but completely doable.

One thing about the renown changes... prior to the change new inexperienced players in need of guidance rarely brought value to any guild, (renown gain per min resulting from slower paced learning runs is often outpaced by experienced zerg tr xp farming runs) in fact, coupled with possibly limited playtime results in a renown burden being ADDED to the renown requirement to advance. An identifiable disincentive to invite new players to joining an established guild.

With the changes any player BEING ADDED will always bring MORE value REGARDLESS of how much they play (even a gain of 50 renown a month for example). Any proposed addendums to the current system to help out smaller guilds should continue to allow for ANY player regardless of how much or little they play to benefit and not detract from a guild. For example: Renown bonuses gained by reduction in size should never make a guild better off. Renown bonuses reduced by increasing in size should never make a guild worse off.

[Artos_Fabril]

Even a 50 account guild has it more than twice as easy beating decay tax than a 6 person max guild bonus guild.

I'm not sure what the last part has to do with anything - well, except that it was exactly that way some large guilds behaved before.

Yes, and a 10 account guild has it 2.5 times as easy as a 4 account guild! They even get the same guild size bonus!

The thing is, neither a 10 account guild, nor a 4 account guild was affected by the change.


Of course, we could just make progression automatic based on time, but that would be unfair to new guilds, as players would all want to join established guilds and no one would ever make their own guild as long as there was an existing guild willing to take them. Then you could truly say goodbye to the small and micro guilds.

Yes the current system is unfair. If you determine fairness solely based on the benefits received, there is no way to make a fair system unless it is a flat system. That was the old old system.

While I am in favor of eliminating renown decay, I also accept that it was instituted for a reason, and also for some reason it was reduced, rather than eliminated completely in the (most recent) change. Those two things being true, I doubt that any suggestion to remove it entirely will be implemented. Therefore, it's time to examine other options. I have proposed several ideas, but the only one I recall anyone else advocating was the complete elimination of decay. Let's all try to come up with some other solutions, and if turbine decides those are too hard and they'd rather just eliminate decay, then we can all still be happy.

[Postumus]

Yes, and a 10 account guild has it 2.5 times as easy as a 4 account guild! They even get the same guild size bonus!

The thing is, neither a 10 account guild, nor a 4 account guild was affected by the change.

So are the posters in this thread wrong when they are saying guild decay for small guilds was increased as part of the change? So the small guild decay is the exact same rate it was last year before the change?

[Artos_Fabril]

So are the posters in this thread wrong when they are saying guild decay for small guilds was increased as part of the change? So the small guild decay is the exact same rate it was last year before the change?

Yes, they are wrong.
Unless it is not WAI as described by Vargouille. In which case it is one of many bugs not on the known issues list and with no timetable for it being addressed. If it is, in fact, not working as intended, the fix needs to be given a high priority, especially concerning all of the server restarts we've been having lately.

No one, to the best of my knowledge, has even claimed that their normal renown increased with this change, just that they are getting an extra decay hit (of the same old amount) on server restart

There were only two changes, both mentioned in the first post.

Any other replies are clarifications to the way the system has worked for some time now.



When the server restarts, decay is immediately processed based on the amount of time that passed since the last decay happened, and from then on decay should happen every 24 hours from the restart time, unless the server restarts again.

This 'restart decay' isn't 24 hours worth, but rather an amount of decay based on how long since decay was last processed. So if decay hits at 3AM, and the servers restart at 11AM, you'll see decay at that 11AM restart that is about 1/3 of the 3AM hit (if levels didn't change, etc.), because that's 8 hours instead of 24. The next day at 11AM you'll see the normal 24 hours of decay.

This does mean guilds will see and are supposed to see decay hit multiple times in a day when the servers restart, but only for the amount they are supposed to decay by, not for two days worth in one day.

[slarden]

So are the posters in this thread wrong when they are saying guild decay for small guilds was increased as part of the change? So the small guild decay is the exact same rate it was last year before the change?

Nobody is stating that guild decay went up as far as I've seen. Large guilds received a massive reduction in decay while guilds of 10 and less receive no reduction and now have a more difficult time holding level gains since the renown penalty for gaining a single level was increased.

The problem is that guilds of all sizes were struggling with decay and the change is making it easy for large guild to level and things are worse for guilds of 10 or less due to the ransack penalty increase. In addition, the frequent server bounces is also making this problem worse.

The point made by around 100 people from small guilds has varied slightly, but the common themes are that decay is a problem for small guilds and most would like to see decay reduced or eliminated.

People in a guild of 10 or less get 10x more decay/person than a person in a guild of 300. People in small guilds don't want decay taken away at a very high rate compared to other guilds.

[slarden]

Yes, and a 10 account guild has it 2.5 times as easy as a 4 account guild! They even get the same guild size bonus!

The thing is, neither a 10 account guild, nor a 4 account guild was affected by the change.


Of course, we could just make progression automatic based on time, but that would be unfair to new guilds, as players would all want to join established guilds and no one would ever make their own guild as long as there was an existing guild willing to take them. Then you could truly say goodbye to the small and micro guilds.

Yes the current system is unfair. If you determine fairness solely based on the benefits received, there is no way to make a fair system unless it is a flat system. That was the old old system.

While I am in favor of eliminating renown decay, I also accept that it was instituted for a reason, and also for some reason it was reduced, rather than eliminated completely in the (most recent) change. Those two things being true, I doubt that any suggestion to remove it entirely will be implemented. Therefore, it's time to examine other options. I have proposed several ideas, but the only one I recall anyone else advocating was the complete elimination of decay. Let's all try to come up with some other solutions, and if turbine decides those are too hard and they'd rather just eliminate decay, then we can all still be happy.

I devised a formula several pages back that gives guilds of 90 or more the same decay they have under this long running test system. It gives guilds of less than 90 a reduced decay.

Getting rid of decay makes complete sense if Turbine is willing to give large guilds a massive decay reduction. A large guild on Sarlona stuck at level 60 gained 11 levels since the change is close to a 12th level I am told. If decay was eliminated completely, a small guild of 10 or less stuck at level 60 would gain only 2 levels all year if everything else remained the same.

It seems ridiculous to deny this guild 2 levels in a year when you are willing to give large guilds 11 levels in a few months.

Turbine has not yet responded to the many questions about why we need to keep decay at all. It would be great if they can explain that so we all understand it. I don't think there is any real purpose for it. Whatever purpose slowing down or stopping leveling used to have - it's obsolete with this recent change to guild decay.

[Artos_Fabril]

People in a guild of 10 or less get 10x more decay/person than a person in a guild of 300. People in small guilds don't want decay taken away at a very high rate compared to other guilds.

You keep repeating this like it's your only talking point.

Players in a guild of 4 have 250% of decay per person as people in a guild of 10! (and the renown bonus is the same) ZOMG it's so unfair! (that neither of these guilds was affected in any way by the change to renown decay)

A guild of 1 has 15x more renown decay per person than a guild of 16! ZOMG solo guilds are dooooomed! They'll all be canabalized by large guilds of 10 or more players!


Drop the hyperbole. Make your point on its own merit. Small guilds are at a relative disadvantage to large guilds, but their existence is not in peril for the exact reason that people choose to be in small guilds to begin with.