Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

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.

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.

Leveling is just as much of an issue for small guilds. Why are only small guilds prevented from leveling now? What purpose does decay that prevents leveling serve?

As for resists, as I mentioned, it just proves the point. Someone with the ship buffs doesn't need anyone to cast resists. Someone without does. it's an advantage and benefit to have these buffs. It was not nobody would pay the plat.

As for the quest, when I was a new player I had no problem with the quest at all except that I had no access to electric resist. That is the sole reason. Anyhow, arguing about that is ridiculous as the point is still valid. The ship buffs help. If they weren't usefule they wouldn't be on almost every ship that is a high enough level to get them.

While your large guild stagnated at 78 most small guilds never even reach 60.

[slarden]

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.

Nobody is claiming doom don't be ridiculous. I saw posts almost every week by large guilds in the general discussion forum. The same people act like it's a crime when we post about the subject and the relative unfairness of the system is much worse now than it used to be.

The facts speak for themselves. Decay is ridiculously high for small guilds and it should be corrected.

[Artos_Fabril]

Nobody is claiming doom don't be ridiculous.

+ For giving any incentive to go over the top. This might have been holding truth for the decay system before the last overhaul. Now I just have to max out my guild to get over the top. Thing done. Is this really WAI and what about the vast majority of small guilds? Is their doom WAI? Is it WAI for any upstart guild to be doomed from the begining because their best players will get lured ayway by bigger and more advanced guilds as soon as they get known by the other players? No incentive for small guilds any more to go over the top. They are doomed anyway, except for small guilds consisting entirely of one player holding 6 accounts (like Zonixx).

Emphasis mine.

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.

Less doomy. Same sentiment.

Granted it's not *you* claiming doom, but it's happening.

I saw posts almost every week by large guilds in the general discussion forum. The same people act like it's a crime when we post about the subject and the relative unfairness of the system is much worse now than it used to be.

The facts speak for themselves. Decay is ridiculously high for small guilds and it should be corrected.

They do indeed. The difference in decay per person is much greater between guilds of 1 and 16, than between guilds of 16 and 300 (1600% versus 1250%). If there is iniquity in the system, it is not based on whether the guild is large or small, it is inherent in any system that divides work to be done by the number of people doing that work.

[Zargarx]

Summary:

Guild leaders - Large guild : The decay is too high
Guild leaders - Small guild : The decay is too high

Turbine: Ok, everybody is considered as guild size 10 for decay calculations

Guild leaders - Large guild : Yay!
Guild leaders - Small guild : WT....

Guild leaders - Large guild : Why are you small guilds complaining? - nothing has changed for you
Guild leaders - Small guild : WT....

[Impaqt]

Summary:

Guild leaders - Large guild : The decay is too high
Guild leaders - Small guild : The decay is too high

Turbine: Ok, everybody is considered as guild size 10 for decay calculations

Guild leaders - Large guild : Yay!
Guild leaders - Small guild : WT....

Guild leaders - Large guild : Why are you small guilds complaining? - nothing has changed for you
Guild leaders - Small guild : WT....

there were very few complaints from small guilds prior to this change..... I distinctly remember many of them telling me to boot the dead weight from my guild if I didnt like it the system....

[blerkington]

there were very few complaints from small guilds prior to this change..... I distinctly remember many of them telling me to boot the dead weight from my guild if I didnt like it the system....

Hi,

There has been a lot of this type of thing in this thread. It doesn't need to be that way. People in small and large guilds shouldn't be campaigning against each other's chances to get ahead. It's counterproductive and a surrender to enviousness.

What we need is a system which is enjoyable for everyone and allows people from all guild sizes to progress.

I'm in a solo guild. I won't ever reach 100. I'm about to hit 55 and I'd like to be able to get to 62 in a reasonable amount of time, then not spend most of my time farming renown just to tread water.

The most recent changes have shown that the renown discussion is open. I like the fact that larger guilds don't have to make the same difficult decisions they did before. They got a break, and that is a good thing.

It would be nice if small guilds could get a break too. I am comfortable with the higher work per person and renown bonuses system we have. What I am not comfortable with is how quickly that renown disappears due to decay, because it changes the way I play into something more like work.

Some more official comment, and action, would be great. And keep up the good work Slarden. Hopefully the effort you spend on this will be rewarded in the end, and you don't get nitpicked to death in the meantime.

Thanks.

[slarden]

there were very few complaints from small guilds prior to this change..... I distinctly remember many of them telling me to boot the dead weight from my guild if I didnt like it the system....

Did I ever tell you that?

So you are deciding to return the favor to people that never did these things to you?

The system is not fair for small guilds as it stands today. I am fine that it takes longer to level up as a small guild. I am not ok that each person in small guilds has a larger penalty simply for being in a small guild. Large decay penalties require guild members to earn renown faster which makes it a timed event. This means for small guilds to advance they must either

1) boot less active members and replace those people with more active members
2) stop forming lfms as it slows down the renown generation process
3) Solo/zerg and dual box

A few people from large guilds are arguing strongly not to give small guilds any sort of decay break. But what nobody has answered, including Turbine development:

What useful purpose does decay serve under the new system since it only creates a leveling barrier for small guilds and lower activity medium/large guilds?

A level 60 guild of 10 people or less that is stalled would only gain 2 levels in one year if decay was removed entirely. What is the problem here that this small guild is able to gain 2 levels in one year instead of staying in place?

One large guilds on Sarlona that was stalled at 60 just prior to the change is now level 71. Removing decay would allow them to gain maybe 1 extra level in a year. It hardly matters as they are advancing quite rapidly. Again, what's the problem with just geting rid of decay since the new change already effectively removed decay as an issue for this guild. I am happy for this guild. But why must only large guilds get the chance to move forward.

As for my guild, we are doing better now that I stopped posting lfms and mostly solo/zerging, but I shouldn't have to choose between grouping with people or moving the guild forward. I don't want the others in the guild to deal with the decay problem so I do it, but I don't think I should have to. Decay makes earning renown a timed event. If you can't earn in time you move backwards.

Turbine, please fix this broken system.

[Postumus]

Summary:

Guild leaders - Large guild : The decay is too high
Guild leaders - Small guild : The decay is too high

Turbine: Ok, everybody is considered as guild size 10 for decay calculations

Guild leaders - Large guild : Yay!
Guild leaders - Small guild : WT....

Guild leaders - Large guild : Why are you small guilds complaining? - nothing has changed for you
Guild leaders - Small guild : WT....

This seems to sum up what I see happened here.

[Postumus]

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.

I agree with this. As someone in a small guild I'd like to see the renown dropped entirely, but I don't feel additionally penalized because big guilds were finally given a break on renown decay.

[Chaos000]

This means for small guilds to advance they must either

1) boot less active members and replace those people with more active members
2) stop forming lfms as it slows down the renown generation process
3) Solo/zerg and dual box

question...

If an active player is willing to join why is it more beneficial to boot and replace less active members as opposed to retaining that member while adding additional people?

#1 should technically be add additional active members to the guild
#2 and 3 can be lumped into "be more efficient in gaining renown"

solo zerging while dual boxing is a tedious and time consuming process. having a fellow guildmember join you (scheduled grouping?) would be a far more efficient use of time assuming you're not having to wait for them.

I've found most guilds small or large often only really have a handful of players that truly fosters a community in which makes or breaks the guild. They're the one's organizing guild raids, static tr leveling marathons, elite favor runs, 6 star house c challenges. Having that as a base will always allow for all guilds regardless of size to grow easily and not have any issue in terms of advancing in rank.

Currently if you're "stuck" and cannot advance in level, adding another player regardless of their level of activity will allow for continued advancement. Previously guild renown was akin to dungeon scaling and sometimes it was easier to shortman a dungeon. Now with the removal of this scaling, the set difficulty is much easier to overcome with more players joining in to help.

[Hendrik]

Did I ever tell you that?

So you are deciding to return the favor to people that never did these things to you?

The system is not fair for small guilds as it stands today. I am fine that it takes longer to level up as a small guild. I am not ok that each person in small guilds has a larger penalty simply for being in a small guild. Large decay penalties require guild members to earn renown faster which makes it a timed event. This means for small guilds to advance they must either

1) boot less active members and replace those people with more active members
2) stop forming lfms as it slows down the renown generation process
3) Solo/zerg and dual box

A few people from large guilds are arguing strongly not to give small guilds any sort of decay break. But what nobody has answered, including Turbine development:

What useful purpose does decay serve under the new system since it only creates a leveling barrier for small guilds and lower activity medium/large guilds?

A level 60 guild of 10 people or less that is stalled would only gain 2 levels in one year if decay was removed entirely. What is the problem here that this small guild is able to gain 2 levels in one year instead of staying in place?

One large guilds on Sarlona that was stalled at 60 just prior to the change is now level 71. Removing decay would allow them to gain maybe 1 extra level in a year. It hardly matters as they are advancing quite rapidly. Again, what's the problem with just geting rid of decay since the new change already effectively removed decay as an issue for this guild. I am happy for this guild. But why must only large guilds get the chance to move forward.

As for my guild, we are doing better now that I stopped posting lfms and mostly solo/zerging, but I shouldn't have to choose between grouping with people or moving the guild forward. I don't want the others in the guild to deal with the decay problem so I do it, but I don't think I should have to. Decay makes earning renown a timed event. If you can't earn in time you move backwards.

Turbine, please fix this broken system.

I bet you are moving forward. Your just not climbing as fast as you want.

What is the name of your Guild? Don't want to say in public, ok, I understand that, PM it to me. I'll keep it confidential, as per CoC. Just post daily renown gains and I will do the same.

Let's see some actual numbers to back up your 'small guilds are prevented from leveling' claim.

Until then, I call BS.

[Blue100000005]

As for my guild, we are doing better now that I stopped posting lfms and mostly solo/zerging, but I shouldn't have to choose between grouping with people or moving the guild forward. I don't want the others in the guild to deal with the decay problem so I do it, but I don't think I should have to. Decay makes earning renown a timed event. If you can't earn in time you move backwards.

Turbine, please fix this broken system.

This. I cant even play higher level content with my main toon, because i have to offset decay, not much but still am needing to. i have farmed irestone or some other low level **** for renown so much i can do it in my sleep.

I also stay at lower levels (NEVER seen endgame ) just so i can TRY to recruit new players, but then i always hear "you are not worth it, you are lvl 33..." The ship buffs are that problem. IF you remove ship buffs does it really matter?

And yes, cannibalization is terrible in my guild. I have seen lots of my players leave, and later on find them in higher level guilds. Is it my recruiting an issue? Perhaps, when you are trying to expand you will accept anyone that is willing. But more than that, i accept anyone because all people need help in the game, and most people are just too arrogant in this DDO age to help lower levels and newbies.

[Dandonk]

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

Not true. Small guilds do have the same decay - granted. But the other change implemented at the same time - namely less renown after levelling (aka. renown ransack) does hurt small guilds.[/QUOTE]

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.

What reason do we have to keep decay?

For large guilds, decay may as well not exist. It's only ever a real problem for small guilds. Why is that OK?

[Artos_Fabril]

Not true. Small guilds do have the same decay - granted. But the other change implemented at the same time - namely less renown after levelling (aka. renown ransack) does hurt small guilds.

Renown ransack, to the degree that it hurts anyone, hurts all guilds equally, with the exception of low level guilds, large or small, that are moving up quickly.

I suspect your contention is based on the case where a guild levels up but doesn't get a buffer, so when they get hit with decay they fall back down, and level again the next day, creating a ransack-cycle each day if they can't build up a buffer. Had I been in charge, it would have kicked in after the second level in a day, rather than the first, and that is a change I would advocate for. Still not a penalty specifically on small guilds though.

[Dandonk]

Renown ransack, to the degree that it hurts anyone, hurts all guilds equally, with the exception of low level guilds, large or small, that are moving up quickly.

I suspect your contention is based on the case where a guild levels up but doesn't get a buffer, so when they get hit with decay they fall back down, and level again the next day, creating a ransack-cycle each day if they can't build up a buffer. Had I been in charge, it would have kicked in after the second level in a day, rather than the first, and that is a change I would advocate for. Still not a penalty specifically on small guilds though.

No, but your claim was that small guilds weren't worse off than before. That is categorically not true. Large guilds are better off, and small guilds are worse off.

What makes it worse is, of course, the relative worth of the two social choices with regards to renown. But even in absolute terms, small guilds are now worse off than before the change.

But it seems Turbine's only reaction to this is to tell us to "stop fighting", instead of actually coming out with a reaction to our concerns. It's been months now... and though Vargouille did admit that the new system isn't fair, the (non)action since seems to indicate that small guilds are just all out of luck.

[Artos_Fabril]

No, but your claim was that small guilds weren't worse off than before. That is categorically not true. Large guilds are better off, and small guilds are worse off.

What makes it worse is, of course, the relative worth of the two social choices with regards to renown. But even in absolute terms, small guilds are now worse off than before the change.

But it seems Turbine's only reaction to this is to tell us to "stop fighting", instead of actually coming out with a reaction to our concerns. It's been months now... and though Vargouille did admit that the new system isn't fair, the (non)action since seems to indicate that small guilds are just all out of luck.

[*]Renown ransack has been increased. Previously when a guild earned levels in a day, it would gradually reduce the renown drop rates. We’ve increased the rate so that a guild can only earn roughly 3 levels in a single day. This should prevent large guilds from completely dominating the field in terms of levels per-day.

Obviously this change was made in order to punish small guilds for choosing to be small. How could anyone think that the point of the increased ransack was to keep large guilds from rocketing through low levels.

[Dandonk]

Obviously this change was made in order to punish small guilds for choosing to be small. How could anyone think that the point of the increased ransack was to keep large guilds from rocketing through low levels.

/sigh

That was not what I wrote, or what I meant.

My meaning was simply: While large guilds got a huge bonus to renown gain, small guilds got a penalty.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Blue100000005]

Not for nothing, but when was the last response regarding this from turbine?

They set off thsi 110+ page rage debate then peace out?

[Blue100000005]

reported. First I am not trolling by discussing guild decay in an official topic about guild decay. Secondly I am not making anythin up. The name callig is unnecessary just because you disagree with my viewpoint - this tactic of attacking people that disagree with a viewpoint must stop. The moderators should not allow this tactic.

Totally AGREE its like talking to children here as of late.



How terrible would it be to not have ship buffs anymore? No buffs, no worries anymore about guild levels really...

[Dandonk]

Not for nothing, but when was the last response regarding this from turbine?

They set off thsi 110+ page rage debate then peace out?

Something like 30th October last year?