Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

If you choose to have an active guild and push your members constantly you will gain benefit... If you choose just to cruise along on auto-pilot.... Not so much....

Keep asking though, all they can do is ignore you or not...

Again with the double standard. We need to keep this easy button for large guilds, but small guilds need to work really hard to keep from moving backwards.

Oh the irony when comparing these comments to the decay threads initiated by large guilds last year.

[Hendrik]

We run some stuff, just not as much as we have done in the past. And then again, more than other times.

I don't seem why it's OK to force small guilds to have higher activity levels to get the same gain as large guilds.

The original vision, backed up by Vargouille in October, is that small guilds should not be this much worse off than large guilds. I'm still hoping Turbine will act on that.

Your small guild, a group of six, doing X Quest takes 1 hour to finish. They get say 2k base renown, then get to add another +70% on top of that.

My large guild, a group of six, doing same X quest, taking 1 hour to finish. We get he same 2k renown. Thats it.

Same activity, yet small has the larger gain for the same amount of time. This 'forced' choice is one you and your guild made to be small.

Sure, I can field many more groups, that is the benefit of being large and the downside of being small. Attempt to equalize that is the bonus. And you know what, you can do the same if you want. Your just have to give up your renown bonus that you so desperatly want to hold on to.

[Dandonk]

Your small guild, a group of six, doing X Quest takes 1 hour to finish. They get say 2k base renown, then get to add another +70% on top of that.

My large guild, a group of six, doing same X quest, taking 1 hour to finish. We get he same 2k renown. Thats it.

Same activity, yet small has the larger gain for the same amount of time. This 'forced' choice is one you and your guild made to be small.

Sure, I can field many more groups, that is the benefit of being large and the downside of being small. Attempt to equalize that is the bonus. And you know what, you can do the same if you want. Your just have to give up your renown bonus that you so desperatly want to hold on to.

Average activity per account.

While we may get 3.7 times more renown per player than you, we also need to combat an even higher decay per player than that.

We have decay/7 per player, you have decay/75 per player. Or: We have more than ten times the decay per player, if my math works. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

[Chaos000]

I can second having all buffs available regardless of level. That way there is no advantage to join a higher level guild, save pride of a big number at your name. But even that being said, you have TP being used for ship buffs and i will NOT pay for them.

I would also suggest that House P and J buffs be more relevant by extending the duration by an additional 30 min to make it in-par with ship buffs for small guilds that perhaps do not have enough space on their ship to have all the buffs.

Out of all the buffs the + %xp buff was the only one that I've seen purchased (and I myself have purchased) on a regular basis with Turbine points. If all buffs become instantly available, the xp buff should remain based on rank to provide an incentive for guild rank advancement and to continue to make Turbine money and benefit the bottom line.

[Artos_Fabril]

I'm confused by the bolded part of you r post.... The system isn't punishing guilds for accepting players. What it does do is REWARD guilds for being active.

As to the current system, you are correct. But when we're talking about making changes to the system, I think it is important to consider that some changes could incentivize removing or declining people based solely on their renown generation. That was the problem with the old system, and should not be re-instituted in any new proposal.

Speaking of which...

How do I get more renown while playing the same way? And why didn't the large guilds do that, then, before?

Eh? Before, large guilds had it "harder", but that was bad. So it was changed. Not small guilds have it harder, but we have to live with it?

Under the old system, large guilds had it harder because they were carrying the per-person decay for their entire roster on the backs of the most active players. There was an incentive for those most active players to either leave and form their own guild, where they would only have to carry their own decay, or to remove the less active members (all those who weren't meeting their personal decay first, and then anyone whose removal would increase the multiplier on the most active such that it more than compensated for the loss of that person's renown gain above their personal decay).**

That is the reason for the new system. Not because guilds weren't advancing, or because it was "too hard" but because all of the incentives in the system were towards exclusion, rather than inclusion. This was (rightly, I feel) seen as detrimental to individual players, most guilds, and the community as a whole.

**Note that what is incentivized by the system is not the only option. Large casual guilds survived by being guilds first and instruments of the system second. Even though the incentives were stacked against them. For the same reason, small guilds are not doomed to extinction under the new system, those most in peril are the small guilds created solely to take advantage of the old system. Those small guilds which actually serve the function of a guild first, and a leveling instrument second, will continue to exist regardless.

This is not to say that there does not need to be some additional tweaking or retooling of the system, but doing so must not discourage inclusiveness.

[Dandonk]

That is the reason for the new system. Not because guilds weren't advancing, or because it was "too hard" but because all of the incentives in the system were towards exclusion, rather than inclusion. This was (rightly, I feel) seen as detrimental to individual players, most guilds, and the community as a whole.

I agree, it was a bad way before.

What I want to be recognized is that it is also bad now. Some small guilds are falling apart over this. Due to the heavy incentives put in place to counter the old issue.

I don't think fixing one problem has to mean that others have to get hugely disadvantaged.

[Nestroy]

We small-guildies really should start to campaign in the general forum, I think. I really feel ignored here. Furthermore I have to read all the BS from the big-guilders in here as well. Hey, Big-guilders, you as well were campaigning with us in the general forum for change, when it benefited you. We all agree that the old system was super BS. Now you got the benefit and we got the shaft! We really would appreciate your assistance, as you got from us when we campaigned with you.

Here are some things that should be easy to implement even with a hotfix, so Turbine, get this going:

1) Accounts = 0 - do not abolish decay or reprogramm everything. Just set the guild account variable that now has 20 accounts active all the time to calculate decay down to Zero. No further decay will be deducted. Problem solved. Alternatively, set it to One for god´s sake and here we go with exactly one account worth of decay each day for each and every guild. Should not be that complicated, I would think. And would greatly improve morale here.

2) Alternatively, set the base for guild renown bonus for small guilds to anything from 500% to 1000% - would even out the edge you gave the big guilds. Quick and dirty, and should not be too hard to implement either.

3) Is there any possibility to re-work some lootlists or to include renown into the trade-in traders for challenges? What is wrong with giving renown in epic lootlists? What is wrong with giving renown as a trade-in for challenges earnings.

4) Please do rework the boxes we get in challenges to have them include renown rewards. Perhaps the most complicated part from my easy-to-do list, but this would be only fair. Haverdasher only lasts 1-2 minutes and gives 2 chests + end reward with possibly renown. Challenges of 5 minutes + give nothing, not even a chance, in up to 4-5 boxes gained? This would certainly boost challenges sales in the process.

I really would love to see at least 1-2 changes to be done with the next hotfix. And point 1 and 2 should not really be that hard to programm - except the code meanwhile is muddled beyound comprehension.

[Chaos000]

As someone in a small guild I can say you are completely wrong on your assertions about small guilds. Try buliding a guild from level 1 with a small group of people and you will understand how it really works.

We heard from many small guilds in this thread and the common themes were (1) decay is too high and (2) guilds shouldn't be forced to recruit as most small guilds are small by choice

If someone is in a small guild and now being told their solution is to recruit - it is only going to lead to frustration not recruitment. More symptoms of the underlying problem that decay is too high. Sure a few guilds may do this, but it makes absolutely no sense to force guilds to recruit that don't want to recruit.

As someone with characters in multiple guilds across multiple servers who went from extremely active to casual due to life circumstances, should guild decay be assessed per account again, an account's activity should apply either to all guilds or the decay burden should be divided amongst all guilds an account is associated with. You know... to be FAIR.

(1) Decay was reduced for practically all guilds with the current change. Even before the change, smaller guilds were able to achieve a higher rank than their larger counterparts by choosing to be small by choice BECAUSE they chose to not include less active players so as to not have to shoulder the added burden that would result WHILE maximizing the benefit of the guild renown size bonus. (2) guilds aren't forced to recruit. It is natural for a guild to grow based on coming across new players that enjoy the community fostered by the guild. The change enables smaller guilds to add new players and suffer no additional decay.

The issue being brought up that needs to be considered is that any bonuses or penalties attributed to increasing and decreasing in size should still make the renown gain of less active accounts ADD to the guild and not detract from it.

With decay. current implementation of decay/level opposed to decay/account achieves that.

As we understand decay is not likely to go away no matter how many times we may suggest it is a good idea, any idea proposed to equalize the balance between larger and smaller accounts still needs to make sure the renown gain (no matter how little so long as it is more than 0) of less active accounts will still bring worth to the guild and not a burden for other members to compensate for.

[smatt]

We small-guildies really should start to campaign in the general forum, I think. I really feel ignored here. Furthermore I have to read all the BS from the big-guilders in here as well. Hey, Big-guilders, you as well were campaigning with us in the general forum for change, when it benefited you. We all agree that the old system was super BS. Now you got the benefit and we got the shaft! We really would appreciate your assistance, as you got from us when we campaigned with you.

Here are some things that should be easy to implement even with a hotfix, so Turbine, get this going:

1) Accounts = 0 - do not abolish decay or reprogramm everything. Just set the guild account variable that now has 20 accounts active all the time to calculate decay down to Zero. No further decay will be deducted. Problem solved. Alternatively, set it to One for god´s sake and here we go with exactly one account worth of decay each day for each and every guild. Should not be that complicated, I would think. And would greatly improve morale here.

You assume there's no reason they have decay in the first place... There is and it should stay...

2) Alternatively, set the base for guild renown bonus for small guilds to anything from 500% to 1000% - would even out the edge you gave the big guilds. Quick and dirty, and should not be too hard to implement either.

We watn all the benfits and none of the negatives "check"
3) Is there any possibility to re-work some lootlists or to include renown into the trade-in traders for challenges? What is wrong with giving renown in epic lootlists? What is wrong with giving renown as a trade-in for challenges earnings.

4) Please do rework the boxes we get in challenges to have them include renown rewards. Perhaps the most complicated part from my easy-to-do list, but this would be only fair. Haverdasher only lasts 1-2 minutes and gives 2 chests + end reward with possibly renown. Challenges of 5 minutes + give nothing, not even a chance, in up to 4-5 boxes gained? This would certainly boost challenges sales in the process.

Meh, sure at least this isn't asking for free handouts for doing nothing.

I really would love to see at least 1-2 changes to be done with the next hotfix. And point 1 and 2 should not really be that hard to programm - except the code meanwhile is muddled beyound comprehension.

I would like to see a hotifx that fixes stuff that needs to be fixed. This last little one wasn't bad IMO

[Nestroy]

I agree with you but I am thinking the most reasonable change they would be willing to accept is a change of the fixed account # from 20 to 10. This still highly favors large guilds, but not any more than a fixed value of 20 does and it allows small guilds that are stuck to move forward.

I am disappointed that Turbine asked for feedback but wasn't really all that interested in it, but to make a significant investment in the guild system would require a way to monetize it and that would take time.

How do you feel about changing the fixed account value from 20 to 10? Let's not post anything yet, I would like to discuss with some friends from large guilds to see if they would be willing to sign along with us. For the most part people in large guilds want to see their friends in small guilds do well just as we wanted to see our friends in large guilds do well. The problem is they aren't in this discussion.

Slarden, while I would of course appreciate the downsizing of decay from 20 to 10 accounts worth, this none the less can only be seen as another half-baked and half-hearthed solution. It will again appease a larger percentage of guildies in the game, but it will bring no solution. Of course I will welcome this downsize as a move in the right direction. But it will not stop me from campaigning for a better guild renown system. And it will not stop me from campaigning for mor sources of guild renown.

Challenges - well, if the sales argument will not help, I really do not know. I will not run any challenge as long as I do get meagre 5 guild renown / red named in challenges, and nothing else. Nor will any of my fellow guildies. Nor will do many players that are new in the system (after the XP nerf, that is).

Epic Quests. Four randomly generated thash items for doing an EE base lv. 21 quest on a level 20 toon? Really, the devs are kidding me! What reason do I have to run these quests on such a sub-par reward? This has to be changed for good.

That´s what I am campaigning for. And I will not stop for a token 10 accounts reduction. Sorry.

[Chaos000]

The problem is that your assumption that people in small guilds are more active is blatantly false. You should also realize small guilds also take effort to maintain and keep active as well.

He was suggesting that the smaller the number of members or players to maintain and keep active the easier it is to coordinate, and the larger the number of members or players to maintain or keep active the more difficult it is to coordinate.

For example: a guild of 4... you only need 3 playing to have 75% of the guild playing at a given time. a guild of 200... you need 150 playing to have 75% of the guild playing at a given time. Which is easier to coordinate as a single guild leader? Is it easier to work around the schedules of 4? or the schedules of 200?

There is also the factor of the number of players affected.

[Nestroy]

You assume there's no reason they have decay in the first place... There is and it should stay...

Since you seem to exactly know the reason why there has to be renown decay, please share the wonders of your insights with us humble idiots. Because we cannot see any reason there since the last change, except for wantonly giving small guilds the boot.

Meh, sure at least this isn't asking for free handouts for doing nothing.

I would not call "Challenges" a free handouts for doing nothing. Or else, I would like to call any quest that is not EE on a first life toon without uber gear a "free handout". E-N and H-N quests are laughably easy. Nonetheless i get full renown in lootlists and chests in H-N. I do not get much renown in lootlists from E-N. And I do feel to get even less in lootlists from E-E, for whatever reason. Perhaps the feeling comes from time/resources invested against loot. Perhaps there really is some hidden formula or I simply face plain bad luck. Whatever, fixing that would not be a "free handout" at all. Or alternatively, abolish any guild renown from any lootlist from any quest. And then let´s wait for the responses from users in the general forum...

[Nestroy]

He was suggesting that the smaller the number of members or players to maintain and keep active the easier it is to coordinate, and the larger the number of members or players to maintain or keep active the more difficult it is to coordinate.

For example: a guild of 4... you only need 3 playing to have 75% of the guild playing at a given time. a guild of 200... you need 150 playing to have 75% of the guild playing at a given time. Which is easier to coordinate as a single guild leader? Is it easier to work around the schedules of 4? or the schedules of 200?

There is also the factor of the number of players affected.

Well, a guild with fairly active 200 accounts levels at about 100k guild renown a day easily. Even with a 300 % bonus and pots, please show me any small guild that is active enough to level 100k renown / day without much extra effort. And please do not cite the Zonixx experiment now. We are talking about 6-10 independent accounts, not multiple-account players multi-instancing.

While most big guilds are much more complicated to coordinate and steer, they have much more hands to do the work. While, in small guilds you often find 1-3 players doing most of the work / rebuffing / decay battling and several others that are the occasional players - no pots and about 2k - 5k renown a day, even with 300% bonus in place, most of them even do not rebuff the ship when necessary... In larger guilds you often find quotas for renown, loot, rebuffing the ship, astral shards. You have to deliver or you are out. There is much more (social) pressure and much less freedom in place in some of the bigger guilds. Well, I have been in larger guilds on different servers. I do know the systems there. Not all, mind you. But some. I love the freedom my small guild provides. And I am happy to deliver. The more I get annoyed by the big time renown decay I get daily then. I have only so much hands on deck to battle this. And many of them have real lifes too. They cannot battle like me. They cannot bring in 5k renown a day minimum.

Well, as long as the system was unfair to by a large margin most small and to all large guilds alike, I did my duty without saying much. When big guilds started to argued against decay, I was advocate for change. Now the big guilds got their share. But the vast majority of players is organized in struggling small guilds. So now I have to adocate for consequently finishing the job Turbine / devs started with all-but-abolishing decay for the big guilds. Now all-to-abolish the decay for the small guilds as well.

[Wipey]

You assume there's no reason they have decay in the first place... There is and it should stay...
~
We watn all the benfits and none of the negatives "check"
~
Meh, sure at least this isn't asking for free handouts for doing nothing.

~
I would like to see a hotifx that fixes stuff that needs to be fixed. This last little one wasn't bad IMO

If I am not mistaken you are in one of the largest guilds on Ghallanda ( correct me if I am wrong ), you weren't moving for months , even down to 79 at one point. Since the change you gained 5 or so levels.
You got your HUGE change so I really don't know why are you so hostile and against possible fair change that doesn't concern you at all. Don't be such hypocrite.

[Chaos000]

With all due respect this is a game and not a job. There is no chance we are going to coordinate renown generation. I do that myself to try and help the guild out, but I am not about to ask others to do so.

our guild is a no drama guild - people are free to do as they wish. If they want help I am happy to help them, but I am not going to ask anyone to spend their limited game time on renown generation. I think they get decay and don't like it, but I doubt they know much about the mechanics and that is fine.

Agreed. this is a game and not a job. I'm just making the point that it is EASIER to maintain activity in smaller numbers. Therefore the more players you have the less you are able to maintain activity so it is reasonable to assume in most cases, smaller guilds have a lower number of less active members than their larger counterparts.

It seems the argument is that because less active members no longer attribute an additional burden for active members to assume, their contributions as a larger group as a whole unbalances the system by decreasing the burden for active members to assume.

That makes the contributions of less active members decreasing and not increasing the burden to be the issue.

[Chaos000]

Well, a guild with fairly active 200 accounts levels at about 100k guild renown a day easily. Even with a 300 % bonus and pots, please show me any small guild that is active enough to level 100k renown / day without much extra effort. And please do not cite the Zonixx experiment now. We are talking about 6-10 independent accounts, not multiple-account players multi-instancing.

When you speak of easy... among the guilds that have hit the maximum rank under the old system, how many fairly active 200 account guilds were among them?

Even if they used the same number or more pots as a smaller guild they could not hope to achieve enough to advance to the maximum rank.

[Hendrik]

Average activity per account.

While we may get 3.7 times more renown per player than you, we also need to combat an even higher decay per player than that.

We have decay/7 per player, you have decay/75 per player. Or: We have more than ten times the decay per player, if my math works. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

And even harder to combat that decay when you are not running anything and are not active.

[Dandonk]

And even harder to combat that decay when you are not running anything and are not active.

True, of course.

But why should large guilds have to work so much less for the same gain?

[Hendrik]

True, of course.

But why should large guilds have to work so much less for the same gain?

By sheer numbers.

Again, the more people you have working on a project, the faster the project will get done. The less people, the longer it takes. Factor in that out of the fewer people on the project, many do not show up to help and those that do show up aren't doing anything.

Dan, I want you to get that L85 ship, I really do. But to get it you need to have active people helping you and not dumping the load on your shoulders to carry them all to it.

Rally your troops. And I hate to say it, but if your Guild Level/Guild Size Bonus is that important to you, find new troops that will help you in the good fight. I'm positive you can find some really great players/people on your sever that would be huge benefit to you - might end up being real friends in the end. If it is the poeple that are more important then Guild Level/Size Bonus, well, you already 'won'.

Get that L85 ship and everything it offers, then you never have to worry about decay or advancement ever again as you have everything the Guild system offers.

[Dandonk]

By sheer numbers.

Again, the more people you have working on a project, the faster the project will get done. The less people, the longer it takes. Factor in that out of the fewer people on the project, many do not show up to help and those that do show up aren't doing anything.

Dan, I want you to get that L85 ship, I really do. But to get it you need to have active people helping you and not dumping the load on your shoulders to carry them all to it.

Rally your troops. And I hate to say it, but if your Guild Level/Guild Size Bonus is that important to you, find new troops that will help you in the good fight. I'm positive you can find some really great players/people on your sever that would be huge benefit to you - might end up being real friends in the end. If it is the poeple that are more important then Guild Level/Size Bonus, well, you already 'won'.

Get that L85 ship and everything it offers, then you never have to worry about decay or advancement ever again as you have everything the Guild system offers.

So we have to work harder overcoming decay AND levelling?

Sorry, I don't think that's fair. And neither does Turbine, from their comments. So thanks for your input, but no.