Guild Renown Changes

[Hendrik]

Sorry I have to jump in on this. While it is impossible to reason with a person who refuses to acknowledge any countering arguments against his position on an issue, any good points he has made thus far is not instantly invalidated.

I'm pretty intractable when it comes to saying that equitable decay/account to measure fairness is unrealistic in a decay/guild-rank system. The main flaw with old decay/account system is while mathematically sound, the assumption of no decline in activity with a higher number of players is hard to accept even in theory. (even in tiny guilds it's preferable to have one player multibox over having two individual players)

I do see merit in all guilds progressing no matter how small, so long as more progression is better achieved through recruitment and not through eliminating any players no matter how low their activity.

With one major difference;

You listen/read others opinions, offer counter proposals, and work very well with others to find a solution.

You make great effort to find common ground vs stamping your feet and take things out of context or support hearsay as fact.

I have also been very adamant on my own views, but aren't we all? The real difference is made when one is willing to compromise on those views vs taking a hardline stance that it has to be done this way or nothing for everyone.


I just made an observation of how I have interpreted postings.

[Hendrik]

I am ok with less decay for smaller guilds as well. Reduction can be as high as turbine is willing to go. However, removing any player no matter how low their activity should continue to not be a manner in which a guild could achieve a reduction in decay.

Sheesh, now I'm going to sound like a broken record.

Much less decay for very small, less for small, and then?

More for Large? Or is that to be left alone? Size bonuses stay where they are? This would just push the plateau where guilds reach equilibrium out only a little farther, gaining a couple extra levels.

The same thing can be accomplish by just adding 5-10(?) to the size bonus to very small and small guilds. Five more active accounts pulling 5 time more renown under current size bonuses. Decay would be easily overcome with the few couple extra accounts, rest is all gain and the plateau would still be pushed out a few levels.


All Guild should advance, agreed. All Guild should NOT advance past where their activity levels prohibit advancement. Not all Guilds should reach 100, large, small, or very small. At some point equilibrium will be reached where gains match losses, the defining factor is player activity within the guild.

[Chaos000]

Much less decay for very small, less for small, and then?

More for Large? Or is that to be left alone? Size bonuses stay where they are? This would just push the plateau where guilds reach equilibrium out only a little farther, gaining a couple extra levels.

This is probably the intent. (less for smaller, more for larger) If decay is reduced to help smaller guilds out to match that of the smallest large guild this discussion would still be ongoing. If decay is reduced to help smaller guilds out to match that of the largest large guild, all guilds in between (classification: large but smaller than the largest large guild) will likely have an issue with that because now being smaller makes you comparatively better off. On the flipside, same principle applies to increasing bonuses.

The argument is that the plateau for guilds of "average" activity should rest at the max level for guilds of all sizes. I know that certainly was not the intent, the impression I get from a lot of the forum posters is that same work per account should net the same results. Having less work (decay) by being in a bigger group (decay shared equally) and more work comparatively by being in a smaller group = unfair. When you don't take the work involved coordinating a bigger group into account this is certainly true.

All Guild should advance, agreed. All Guild should NOT advance past where their activity levels prohibit advancement. Not all Guilds should reach 100, large, small, or very small. At some point equilibrium will be reached where gains match losses, the defining factor is player activity within the guild.

We can all pretty much agree to this. The crux of the issue is that the smaller the guild, higher the activity level requirement to gain advancement. Yes not all guilds will reach 100. A character capped guild could theoretically not have sufficient activity to overcome an equilibrium before reaching 100. For each player that a smaller guild adds while it decreases the activity level *requirement* 1) there's no guarantee the added player will exceed the activity level, 2) guild size bonus also declines. In rare cases, the added player cannot maintain the activity level to make up for the decline in guild size bonus. Despite the lower activity level requirement, the guild is worse off for having grown. Therefore smaller guilds would prefer better circumstances without the need to grow.

Just have to figure out what would be an activity level that would be considered reasonable to advance. There are really tiny guilds at maximum level on the leaderboards. When you point them out to show that it is "possible" the argument against that is that they attribute only 1% of the total population and therefore an abnormality that cannot be considered.

[Hendrik]

We can all pretty much agree to this. The crux of the issue is that the smaller the guild, higher the activity level requirement to gain advancement. Yes not all guilds will reach 100. A character capped guild could theoretically not have sufficient activity to overcome an equilibrium before reaching 100. For each player that a smaller guild adds while it decreases the activity level *requirement* 1) there's no guarantee the added player will exceed the activity level, 2) guild size bonus also declines. In rare cases, the added player cannot maintain the activity level to make up for the decline in guild size bonus. Despite the lower activity level requirement, the guild is worse off for having grown. Therefore smaller guilds would prefer better circumstances without the need to grow.

Just have to figure out what would be an activity level that would be considered reasonable to advance. There are really tiny guilds at maximum level on the leaderboards. When you point them out to show that it is "possible" the argument against that is that they attribute only 1% of the total population and therefore an abnormality that cannot be considered.

Not to sure about that if we look at Twigzz Guild as an example. 7 Accounts, less then half are above casual and will plateau somewhere around 94-96GL. However, that is a very small. We STILL lack concrete numbers from small guilds to have any comparasion. Why won't any small help out with this???

See, setting an 'activity level' won't work. Far to many variables. People complain about what is 'fair', defining a resonable activity level would open a whole new can of worms, much worse then was this whole debate has been. By the Nine Hells, so much worse. We have peole in this thread complaining now that they are not active nor run content and can't advance, try to tell them you need to be "X" active for this amount of time, nope, won't work.

Needs stay as a player choice when it comes to in-game activity. They must just understand if you do not play alot, do not expect to advance to the top tiers. The needs to be some accountability for the guild and how high they can reach based on member activity.

And I will go back to my broken record, increase guild size by 5-10 to allow guild to add more members without fear of loosing size bonus. Back into the guild leaders hands to advance or stagnate.

[DocBenway]

For what it's worth, a guild with 20 total accounts, 15 of which were "active" guildsize-wise in the last year, any number of them between 2-9 active in any 1 24 hour period. 4 consistent players in that even if the active number was sometimes 2 for a couple of days, when it was 4 you knew which 4 they were. Posts earlier in the thread describe how 7 of the 9 fluctuating active folks felt about decay, the bonus and it's effect on their desire to return for fear of "hurting" their friends progress.

This guild was level 44 at the beginning of February 2012. Nearing the beginning of February 2013 this guild is not yet halfway through level 52. 8 levels in the past year, and the 1 account logged in near 40 hours a week used 45 Medium Renown elixirs, 24 Greater Renown Elixirs and countless used Minor ones from the Challenges.
Current size is 5, recent "spurt of activity" returns included lots of talk of World of Tanks, DCUO, GW2, Neverwinter heck even The Secret World. Lots of distractions for those feeling penalized for not playing.

The system was imposed on a guild formed as a common identity that facilitated communication between a bunch that given the option would group with each other anytime. The system monetizing and trying to push people into newly monetized guilds with loot that required them and in game advantages tied to larger numbers following their names, does not and has never jived with the way we recruited. We grouped a few times and made sure most/everyone got to talk to them to be sure they were us and we were them, so to speak.

We can only hope that folks remember the tag and the fun people under it and if they become unhappy with the guild they chose, may approach us. New post change recruitment drives of large guilds leaves none but favor running server hoppers without a tag, and we don't poach. We are generally helpful in chat channels and elaborate in tells as best we can when asked, but the helpfulness only seems to be remembered after a bad experience in a guild 40 levels higher up and 50x the size where they were ignored.*

*-- Not all/any/most large/high level guilds ignore membership or are unhelpful, just personal examples and anecdotes, no offense intended to any sizes, religions, denominations, dietary requirements.

[Chaos000]

And I will go back to my broken record, increase guild size by 5-10 to allow guild to add more members without fear of loosing size bonus. Back into the guild leaders hands to advance or stagnate.

The only issue with increasing guild sizes is that it just shifts the size bonus table. Add 5-10 members before again fearing to lose size bonuses.

What about a two week (or more) delay before reducing size bonuses due to guild size increases? This way smaller guilds that grow can continue to enjoy a higher benefit during the added member's "trial" period membership.

I will continue to state that I feel that removal of players should still (= no benefit or...) take longer (than players are willing to wait) before the benefit of increased size bonuses can be received.

[Dandonk]

The crux of the issue is that the smaller the guild, higher the activity level requirement to gain advancement. Yes not all guilds will reach 100. A character capped guild could theoretically not have sufficient activity to overcome an equilibrium before reaching 100. For each player that a smaller guild adds while it decreases the activity level *requirement* 1) there's no guarantee the added player will exceed the activity level, 2) guild size bonus also declines. In rare cases, the added player cannot maintain the activity level to make up for the decline in guild size bonus. Despite the lower activity level requirement, the guild is worse off for having grown. Therefore smaller guilds would prefer better circumstances without the need to grow.

Thank you.

[Hendrik]

The only issue with increasing guild sizes is that it just shifts the size bonus table. Add 5-10 members before again fearing to lose size bonuses.

What about a two week (or more) delay before reducing size bonuses due to guild size increases? This way smaller guilds that grow can continue to enjoy a higher benefit during the added member's "trial" period membership.

I will continue to state that I feel that removal of players should still (= no benefit or...) take longer (than players are willing to wait) before the benefit of increased size bonuses can be received.

Still believe that that is a great idea.

Whatever solution, if any, is come up with at the heart of all this it is in-game player activity that should be the defining factor in all advancement in the end. Thenk we are on the same page with that.

[Nestroy]

(...)Whatever solution, if any, is come up with at the heart of all this it is in-game player activity that should be the defining factor in all advancement in the end. Thenk we are on the same page with that.

+1 and totally on your side here.

Then again - away with the decay completely.Only activity counts.

And then there is a decission to make: Ingame activity per player - nice to hear, but...
... away with the guild size bonus completely? Remember, only the activity counts.
... more bonus for smaller guilds to even out the big guild´s leveling power? Small guild players must have a legit chance to eventually reach the best buffs / levels / whatever.

Well, I am totally in favor for any system where only activity is the deciding factor. But what then?

[Hendrik]

+1 and totally on your side here.

Then again - away with the decay completely.Only activity counts.

And then there is a decission to make: Ingame activity per player - nice to hear, but...
... away with the guild size bonus completely? Remember, only the activity counts.
... more bonus for smaller guilds to even out the big guild´s leveling power? Small guild players must have a legit chance to eventually reach the best buffs / levels / whatever.

Well, I am totally in favor for any system where only activity is the deciding factor. But what then?

Size Bonus stays, IMO. Active players, the ones online and running content, benefit from the Bonus. Helps them reach higher levels. Even maybe a small increase to it. But we also have very small guilds that can/will reach mid-90s before they reach equilibrium.

As above, a small increse for small guilds for size bonus - maybe even increase the size amount, top end go from 25 to 30. Allows for extra members to be added to help smalls even more. Add extra active members would really help.

Then what? Small guilds can gain few extra levels, maybe even more. How high they can go would totally depend on how active the guild is. Not ALL Guilds, Very Small, Small, or even Large can/will reach 100. That has to be a given, again, how high they go is depending on how active the guild is as a whole.

The 'burden' needs to be lessened somewhat, but not handed to them. Higher levels need to be 'worked' for and not a 'gimmie'.

[twigzz]

Ok here are my guilds numbers from the past few days. I'm gonna continue to record this too as these numbers are from 2 non casuals, our 3rd non casual has been away dealing with medical problems with his mother this week. I'm wondering what lvl we are gonna top off at.

Started Tuesday 12,864,709
Wed 12,928,810
Thurs 12,979,769
Fri 13,034,689
Sat 13.112.812
Sun 13,110,662
Mon 13,178,199

Sunday's are our 6 person static(if we all can make it), can't wait to see that number.

Our guild consists of 7 accounts. 3 non casual, 4 casual(logs maybe 2-3 times a week and does little with that time aside from static). We are lvl63 and should hit 64 tonight. We get a 285% bonus to renown.

Updated.

Too bad we bounced a couple times between 63 and 64, Mondays check would have been huge. Ransack is balls! We had a great a static session!

[Hendrik]

Updated.

Too bad we bounced a couple times between 63 and 64, Mondays check would have been huge. Ransack is balls! We had a great a static session!

Again, ty Twigzz!

Now if only a few more would actually do that same thing you are, there would be compelling, and factual, case for some changes to specific parts of the systems.

Please, keep up the good work. Hope more will follow your lead!

/respect

[Dandonk]

So, Turbine, how long are small guilds going to suffer under the already-admitted-unfair system we currently have?

[Blue100000005]

Remove ship buffs and all the complaining stops...

No reason to get favor from some places anymore, buffs override them.

[slarden]

Size Bonus stays, IMO. Active players, the ones online and running content, benefit from the Bonus. Helps them reach higher levels. Even maybe a small increase to it. But we also have very small guilds that can/will reach mid-90s before they reach equilibrium.

As above, a small increse for small guilds for size bonus - maybe even increase the size amount, top end go from 25 to 30. Allows for extra members to be added to help smalls even more. Add extra active members would really help.

Then what? Small guilds can gain few extra levels, maybe even more. How high they can go would totally depend on how active the guild is. Not ALL Guilds, Very Small, Small, or even Large can/will reach 100. That has to be a given, again, how high they go is depending on how active the guild is as a whole.

The 'burden' needs to be lessened somewhat, but not handed to them. Higher levels need to be 'worked' for and not a 'gimmie'.

Again, nobody is asking for a "gimmie". The problem we have now is that people in guild of 10 or less have their renown taken away from them at a rate 10x higher than some other large guilds.

Asking to get rid of a decay tax that is 10x higher than people in other guilds face is not asking for a "gimmie". It's a reasonable request for fairness.

[Chaos000]

You continue to make the assumption that guild bonus is a factor in deciding whether or not to take someone on. As I showed before, the likelihood that adding a person would be beneficial is extremely high, so much so that it's not even worth considering. We add people if it's a good fit, but we will never force to optimize our guild level.

So long as adding a person IS NOT always beneficial, (likelihood + extremely high = not always), the assumption that guild bonus IS a factor in deciding whether or not to take someone on IS worth considering.

Increasing the guild bonus WILL increase the likelihood that less people would be fall under the category of "beneficial" and more people will be considered for removal.

Isn't the likelihood also that adding and keeping a person being beneficial is so extremely high it's not even worth considering that guilds could boot players just to keep 75% of their renown gain?

If you raise the guild bonus enough, the bonus WILL be a factor in deciding whether or not to take someone on. In the old system the decay/account was set high enough, it got to a point where a player's activity to offset their personal decay WAS the deciding factor for whether or not to take them on, or in some cases to retain them in guild.

[slarden]

So long as adding a person IS NOT always beneficial, (likelihood + extremely high = not always), the assumption that guild bonus IS a factor in deciding whether or not to take someone on IS worth considering.

Increasing the guild bonus WILL increase the likelihood that less people would be fall under the category of "beneficial" and more people will be considered for removal.

Isn't the likelihood also that adding and keeping a person being beneficial is so extremely high it's not even worth considering that guilds could boot players just to keep 75% of their renown gain?

If you raise the guild bonus enough, the bonus WILL be a factor in deciding whether or not to take someone on. In the old system the decay/account was set high enough, it got to a point where a player's activity to offset their personal decay WAS the deciding factor for whether or not to take them on, or in some cases to retain them in guild.

I don't think increasing small guild bonus is the right answer, but it's better than nothing. If guild bonus is raised it simply increases the contribution of all players it doesn't change the relative percentages between the more active and less active guildies.

As someone who has been in a small guild since it was level 1 I can't agree with you. Again, decay is a timed issue that forces people to play faster or more to cover decay. I don't think the issue here is guild bonus which simply increases everyone's contribution. The issue is decay which means people that can't earn renown fast enough aren't helping cover the decay tax.

The issue isn't small guild bonus, but decay. It's the same issue large guilds complained about all last year. Don't forget that guilds of 10 or less are under the same old decay-ridden system plus the ransack penalty made it worse for us. Decay is the issue that causes small gulds to move backwards and even think about individual contribution levels - not bonus.

[Chaos000]

If guild bonus is raised it simply increases the contribution of all players it doesn't change the relative percentages between the more active and less active guildies.

Let me posit a scenario: Adding a player A = decreased multiplier ([+300% -> +285%]size bonus) that applies to whole guild A [6 members, 1,500/member per day, 27,000 with bonus, 25,650 with added member]. If the guild A is active [25,650 with added member] and the player A added is far less active [1 new member, 100 per day, 285 with new bonus], the loss in decreased multiplier can result in a net loss to guild A. [27,000 - (25,650 + 285) = net loss in progression: 1,065]

Player A needs to net an additional 373 per day to not be booted.

After increasing the multiplier [x10%] (size bonus) [+3000% -> +2850%]. Add player A, same activity [100/day, 2850 with new bonus]. If guild B is active [6 members, 1,500/member per day, 270,000 with bonus, 250,650 with added member] and player A added is far less active[100/day], the loss in decreased multiplier can result in a net loss in guild B. [270,000 - (250,650 + 2850) net loss in progression: 16,500]

Player A now needs to net an additional 578 per day to not be booted.

Raising the guild bonus (and therefore the contribution of each player) also increases the opportunity cost of adding a player. Player A has to work harder for guild B over guild A due to guild bonus increases. See? I can do theoretical math too.

The issue isn't small guild bonus, but decay. It's the same issue large guilds complained about all last year. Don't forget that guilds of 10 or less are under the same old decay-ridden system plus the ransack penalty made it worse for us. Decay is the issue that causes small guilds to move backwards and even think about individual contribution levels - not bonus.

Dude I'm in a bunch of guilds (including a tiny one) of various sizes across 4 servers. If I gain 7000 renown in a day, why isn't it applying to the decay across all the guilds I'm in?

At least now some of the small guilds I'm in won't find reasons to arbitrarily boot me if I only log in to say hi once every couple months. Players in my situation are glad for the current change as guild of 10 or less benefit more from "once in a while" players than they had previously. +additional penalty +decrease in size bonus.

Perhaps the issue for you is decay, for me it's really not decay. It's the issue of incentivizing active accounts to target and remove less active accounts in order to progress.

Old system, =decay/account. Meaning each account comes with additional daily decay. Any overflow of the burden of decay is shifted to more active members.

New members (more active) = less work. new members (less active) = more work. no brainer. remove less active members to have less work.

New system, =decay/guild. Meaning each account does not come with additional daily decay. The burden of decay is still shifted to more active members.

New members (more active) = less work. new members (less active and taking size bonus out of equation) = less work. no more incentive to remove less active members to have less work.

[DocBenway]

Players in my situation are glad for the current change as guild of 10 or less benefit more from "once in a while" players than they had previously. +additional penalty +decrease in size bonus.

I'm not sure I'm clear on this, as my guild of 10 active or less "benefits" no more or less now. The +size penalty only reduced the size bonus if we were at 6 at the time, since decay never dropped below size 10. Any once in a while player is taxed the same as they were before and affect the bonus the same as they did before.
It was detailed in earlier posts how this was detrimental to them returning to the game. If they were going to play, they wanted to play with us but felt they hurt more than helped if they couldn't guarantee a lot of playtime and they did not want to hinder their friends progress. This with a strongly emphasized "Screw worrying about renown" policy.

Policy and reassurance from the folks they feel they are affecting does not remove guilt imposed by a system of atrophy, blight, corrosion, crumbling, decadence, decline, decomposition, decrease, decrepitude, degeneracy, degeneration, depreciation, deterioration, dilapidation, disintegration, disrepair, dissolution, dying, extinction, fading, failing, impairment, mortification, perishing, putrefaction, rot, ruin, rust, spoilage, wasting, withering (decay).

[Artos_Fabril]

The issue isn't small guild bonus, but decay. It's the same issue large guilds complained about all last year. Don't forget that guilds of 10 or less are under the same old decay-ridden system plus the ransack penalty made it worse for us. Decay is the issue that causes small gulds to move backwards and even think about individual contribution levels - not bonus.

The issue that brought about the change to decay was not that large guilds could not advance, but that they could only do so by removing less active members. Guilds that refused to do this languished, losing levels if activity dropped further for any reason, or momentarily advancing if activity peaked (or on bonus renown weekends) before falling again.

But Turbine probably doesn't, and probably shouldn't, care whether a guild can advance, or advance as quickly as its members want. What causes concern is when players are dropped from guilds due to inactivity, or guild leaders are forced to choose between advancement for the more active members and inclusion for less active members. Those less active players get turned off by the inability to join guilds, or the negative contribution they bring to the guilds that will take them. And either stop logging in so that they go inactive and cause no decay, or stop playing altogether because they can't participate in a major aspect of the community.

Under the new system, inclusion is always beneficial, except in the case of small guilds, due to the small guild bonus potentially outweighing a casual player's renown contribution (it is still almost always beneficial to small guilds too). But we can't get rid of the small guild bonus, because otherwise small guilds advance at a snail's pace and in some cases decline due to being unable to meet decay. So that's off the table, how do we encourage small guilds to be inclusive, without "forcing" (incentivizing) them to recruit?

Eliminating decay doesn't do anything to encourage small guilds to be more inclusive, and there are few, if any, solutions available that encourage inclusiveness without preferring expansion.

I favor eliminating decay anyway, but as Turbine has demonstrated reluctance to do so, changing the mechanics for calculating activity, rather than the mechanics of renown, seems to me to be the best answer.