Guild Renown Changes

[Chaos000]

I don't know what guilds you are in, I just know your comments are always favoring large guilds exclusively and suggesting changes that would hurt small guilds.

My agenda has always been to favor of inclusion and to eliminate any negative contribution a less active player brings to the guild that takes them.

Regardless of guild size, the old system (between size bonuses and decay/account) applied a negative contribution to all less active players. Your stance is that the old system was "fair" and the new system isn't, mine is that the new system counts the contribution of all players no matter how little while the old system penalized association with players of low activity. Of course we'll be at odds.

Very Small guild of 10 vs larger guild of 51. Large guild of 51 vs. larger guild 260. The large guild of 51 will have a harder time keeping up with a larger guild of 260 in comparison to a very small guild of 10 keeping up with a larger guild of 51.

If we're talking about less work per player in larger groups. In a system where even a guild of 500+ accounts could, with a very low activity, stagnate in levels... even if you assigned a "reasonable expectation of renown gain" there's no way to make it "fair" because any player that falls under this expectation of renown gain are left at a disadvantage.

Again the flaw with what you and artos are bringing up is that small guilds tend not to do blind invites. Our guilds invite unguilded players we've run with before. If a player is active when we recruited them and we've quested with them before, the risk of such a scenario is very small. In fact it's never happened for our guild.

The flaw in this argument is that not doing blind invites is not exclusive to small guilds. Blind inviting and booting people that fail to meet criteria is not exclusive to large guilds. Some of the guilds I'm in, convince friends that play other mmo's to join this game. When actively recruiting, we won't stand around the harbor sending mass tells, we will make an effort to hop in low level pugs, help out and have a chat with some unguilded players.

Real issue is as the guild matures, players focusing on TR'ing and end game content do not want to waste time on players brand new to the content. Have conversations with players you group with, just because they're guilded does not mean they didn't just randomly hit accept to a blind guild invite and found themselves unhappy there.

Players of low activity with a solid history of being a competent player find themselves having problems getting into smaller guilds of higher than the average activity. This is why we are even talking about how the small guild bonus is counter intuitive to inclusiveness.

[Hendrik]

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.

I now firmly believe that the poster you Quoted is in a Guild that raced to high levels and now the Guild is not active - as in not many members online anymore. The 'burden' of decay is now shifted to the last few that are still playing. Now that they raced to the top, those last few cannot overcome the decay due to inactivity of the whole Guild.

This is why we have not and will not ever see posters renown numbers to help the cse for change, such as twigzz has done.

Instead of getting those that are not playing to play or getting new members in, the only solution is to remove decay which is farther from the truth.

And many very good ideas posted, and even by large Guild members - odd they are all ignored because they don't remove decay aren't they?

[Dandonk]

Turbine, come on. You've admitted the current system is unfair. When are you going to do something about it?

[Gremmlynn]

Turbine, come on. You've admitted the current system is unfair. When are you going to do something about it?

Do what exactly? Because I've yet to see a suggestion for a change that works for everybody.

[DocBenway]

While we are throwing numbers at things:

28 days before the changes my guild was at 6,250,000 renown.
As of this moment the total renown is at 7,189,252 renown.
A "gain" of 939,252.
How much actual renown was earned in that same time? 1,225,997.

We got to keep 286,745 less renown than we earned, or 75% of our work actually counted.

[Nestroy]

Do what exactly? Because I've yet to see a suggestion for a change that works for everybody.

How about this?
set RenownDecayMinimumCountSize=0
set RenownDecayAccountSize=(Min(0;ActiveAccounts))

I would rather say this would benefit everybody.

This even could be done with a hotfix. No hours of programming necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apart from this: I would prefer some clear statements from the devs of what they intend with renown and decay. As soon as we get their "wish-list" of what the whole system should look like (e.g. "We do not want all guilds at lv. 100 but most guilds buying the best ship."; "We want all guildlds to eventually buy a lot of pots."...) we can start to discuss of how the system should be reworked to benefit players and Turbine alike. Somehow we have to pay for DDO, be it f2p or not, one way or the other. And the guild system of course is a way to part us from our money the easy way. But then, as a small guild at least, I want to know that my money is well invested, not used to make up for the big guilds to get the free lunch (decay system in it´s current state).

[Hendrik]

Do what exactly? Because I've yet to see a suggestion for a change that works for everybody.

The system is unfair to those higher level small guilds that don't play, run content, full of inactive players, and won't add members to overcome the inactive members.

How dare Turbine make guilded players play the game to make advancement.

[Hendrik]

While we are throwing numbers at things:

28 days before the changes my guild was at 6,250,000 renown.
As of this moment the total renown is at 7,189,252 renown.
A "gain" of 939,252.
How much actual renown was earned in that same time? 1,225,997.

We got to keep 286,745 less renown than we earned, or 75% of our work actually counted.

Please include all relevant info.

Guild Level, accounts active/inactive, size, and size bonus.

[Gremmlynn]

How about this?
set RenownDecayMinimumCountSize=0
set RenownDecayAccountSize=(Min(0;ActiveAccounts))

I would rather say this would benefit everybody.

This even could be done with a hotfix. No hours of programming necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apart from this: I would prefer some clear statements from the devs of what they intend with renown and decay. As soon as we get their "wish-list" of what the whole system should look like (e.g. "We do not want all guilds at lv. 100 but most guilds buying the best ship."; "We want all guildlds to eventually buy a lot of pots."...) we can start to discuss of how the system should be reworked to benefit players and Turbine alike. Somehow we have to pay for DDO, be it f2p or not, one way or the other. And the guild system of course is a way to part us from our money the easy way. But then, as a small guild at least, I want to know that my money is well invested, not used to make up for the big guilds to get the free lunch (decay system in it´s current state).

No that would only satisfy the least important people, at least from the point of view of those paying someone to write the code, the players.

As to what Turbine intended with renown decay and what they still hope for from guilds not willing to use the work around they added to prevent a huge portion of their customer base to be excluded from nearly any guild worth the title is likely for guilds to plateau around level 55 so they are perpetually buying those +2 stat and 30pt resist shrines from the DDO store. If this were not the case I can't think of a logical reason they did as much as they did to develop the guild system n the first place. I simply don't see it as being either a big player retention system or a way of drawing new players to the game.

[Dandonk]

Do what exactly? Because I've yet to see a suggestion for a change that works for everybody.

I'm sure they can see many, many proposals in this thread. As well as come up with some of their own. After all, they created the problem - they can fix it.

And since it doesn't work for everybody, it's OK that someone gets hurt... as long as it isn't you? Got it.

This current system hurts small guilds. We have to play several times as much as large guilds... just to keep up with renown, not even to start gaining. That's unfair, and it hurts the small guild community. We've already had reports of guilds falling apart. The longer this goes on, the worse it'll get.

I'm glad large guilds got their problems sorted out. I just wish it didn't come at the expense of us small guilds. A fair solution is needed - one that does not hurt either guild type.

[Gremmlynn]

And since it doesn't work for everybody, it's OK that someone gets hurt... as long as it isn't you? Got it.

No, as long as it isn't Turbine. Because that's the party who's interests are going to be looked after first with any change. Not because I care, but because I'm not naive enough to believe they would pay someone to write code that they didn't expect would lead to getting a greater sum in return.

For the record, I personally could care less how easy it is for anyone's guild to advance as long as there isn't an incentive to exclude players from guilds to make it easier. Really, the reward isn't worth the effort of worrying about it to me.

[Dandonk]

No, as long as it isn't Turbine. Because that's the party who's interests are going to be looked after first with any change. Not because I care, but because I'm not naive enough to believe they would pay someone to write code that they didn't expect would lead to getting a greater sum in return.

For the record, I personally could care less how easy it is for anyone's guild to advance as long as there isn't an incentive to exclude players from guilds to make it easier. Really, the reward isn't worth the effort of worrying about it to me.

I don't really know how to weigh the potential loss of renown pot-income versus the potential gain of ship-AD-things. I doubt anyone but Turbine can, really.

But I keep hoping, maybe naïvely, that since Turbine has admitted the system is unfair that they'll also do something about it.

[Chaos000]

I'm glad large guilds got their problems sorted out. I just wish it didn't come at the expense of us small guilds. A fair solution is needed - one that does not hurt either guild type.

So long as the "fair" solution doesn't come with an incentive to make some players (even those that gain 5 renown a month) expendable (at their expense.. you know like the old system), you'll brook no argument from me.

I am more ok with guilds hesitating to add a player to retain bonuses over guilds not hesitating to boot a player to gain bonuses.

[DocBenway]

Please include all relevant info.

Guild Level, accounts active/inactive, size, and size bonus.

From a few times in this thread:

For the last year we have had mainly a core of 4-6 and a rotation of the other 15 active and not, but never enough to have more than 9 active at a time. Of the 15, 7 have expressed to me, a dislike of causing decay and reducing the bonus as a double whammy when they return from times away. On a rare occasion when there were 4 or 5 active I'd get to tell em they helped the bonus, but the standard reply is "I'll take you over (whatevernumber) percent any day." This may or may not help any personal 'guilt' they have over it, but I try.
Of the 4-6 core(still down to 2 sometimes, but usually not more than a week), all run giant's vault on alt character to be sure they have covered the days decay, so they can start having fun without worrying about hindering the collective progress made. This, even with a stressed don't worry about renown policy.

...
There are 21 of us, since U9, no more than 1-9 active at a time. Currently had a bonus drop a few stages due to it being a month since GW2 was released. If decay is to be kept, then the math should factor only for sizes below 10, rather than decaying them at hard minimum of 10 like it has and continues to.

/raises hand
Our small guild existed before renown was imposed on us, lived through the no small bonus, and the log in all your alts or you count as more accounts and reduce the bonus times. We have 21 people, but 1-9 have been active in any month for bonus/decay in the last year. Usually 5, as low as 2 and up to 9, but not over 10, and fear that some who took a break may not wish to return casually and "hurt" our progress, even though by policy renown is to be treated as an afterthought, never obligation.

We are about 2/3 to level 51.

There are more but it should all be there.

Dropped from 5 to 4 in active size today, due to work related travel during a "busy time" for one fellow. 1/3 of the way into level 52. 8 levels in the last year; decay has remained the same, at what was considered to be "fair" under the old system, for 10 players, even though in that year no more than 9 were active in any 24 hour decay period both pre and post change.

ETA - Noticed the quotes mentioning 21, they must predate the one player leaving the game and deleting characters that, as far as I could tell, cost us no renown. Current total size is 20, but active numbers unchanged.

[Dandonk]

So long as the "fair" solution doesn't come with an incentive to make some players (even those that gain 5 renown a month) expendable (at their expense.. you know like the old system), you'll brook no argument from me.

I am more ok with guilds hesitating to add a player to retain bonuses over guilds not hesitating to boot a player to gain bonuses.

I do not want a return to the "let's-kick-'em-just-to-be-sure" version from before, either. I just want small guilds to be equally viable. I'm sure Turbine can figure out a way to do this. There are many suggestions in this thread, if they're in doubt.

[Hendrik]

From a few times in this thread:

Thank you Doc, easy to loose vital info in this mess.

Please keep updating your renown totals day by day if you can.

20 Accounts and 4/5 Active players @ GL 52 w/ Renown total of 7,189,252.

Small Guild Bonus: 105.88%

Decay @ : 2,531


Look forward to your next update!

TY

What server you playing on?

[slarden]

My agenda has always been to favor of inclusion and to eliminate any negative contribution a less active player brings to the guild that takes them.

Regardless of guild size, the old system (between size bonuses and decay/account) applied a negative contribution to all less active players. Your stance is that the old system was "fair" and the new system isn't, mine is that the new system counts the contribution of all players no matter how little while the old system penalized association with players of low activity. Of course we'll be at odds.

Very Small guild of 10 vs larger guild of 51. Large guild of 51 vs. larger guild 260. The large guild of 51 will have a harder time keeping up with a larger guild of 260 in comparison to a very small guild of 10 keeping up with a larger guild of 51.

If we're talking about less work per player in larger groups. In a system where even a guild of 500+ accounts could, with a very low activity, stagnate in levels... even if you assigned a "reasonable expectation of renown gain" there's no way to make it "fair" because any player that falls under this expectation of renown gain are left at a disadvantage.



The flaw in this argument is that not doing blind invites is not exclusive to small guilds. Blind inviting and booting people that fail to meet criteria is not exclusive to large guilds. Some of the guilds I'm in, convince friends that play other mmo's to join this game. When actively recruiting, we won't stand around the harbor sending mass tells, we will make an effort to hop in low level pugs, help out and have a chat with some unguilded players.

Real issue is as the guild matures, players focusing on TR'ing and end game content do not want to waste time on players brand new to the content. Have conversations with players you group with, just because they're guilded does not mean they didn't just randomly hit accept to a blind guild invite and found themselves unhappy there.

Players of low activity with a solid history of being a competent player find themselves having problems getting into smaller guilds of higher than the average activity. This is why we are even talking about how the small guild bonus is counter intuitive to inclusiveness.

I am sorry but what you are saying is simply not true as it is rare to run across someone that is not in a guild at high levels and when I do they are usually unguilded by choice I am not finding these unguilded people you keep referring to anywhere on Sarlona. Most of the unguilded folks that were recruited into my guild were inactive for some period of time and booted from their previous guilds for inactivity. I would hope they found a happy home in our guild.

As I said, it's fairly hard to find someone that is unguilded and interested in joining a guild period.

As for lower level players, they are better served by joining one of the many guilds recruiting in the harbor - both before and after this guild change. When I was a new player I hated running with experienced players because they ran through the content so fast and left doors closed. I never got to learn the quest. Being part of a small guild with people that were also new like myself made sense and worked much better.

You are going to have to start producing these people with a solid history that can't get into guilds because I am not finding them on Sarlona.

[Chaos000]

You are going to have to start producing these people with a solid history that can't get into guilds because I am not finding them on Sarlona.

"These people." "Solid history of being a competent player." it's what you've recruited into your guild yet you're claiming that you haven't come across them.

"Most of the unguilded folks that were recruited into my guild were inactive for some period of time and booted from their previous guilds for inactivity."

I could use myself as an example. Before I got married I wasted quite a bit of time goofing off in this game. Helping a guild member to lay out birthday cake djinns in house d to spell out "happy b-day" for example...

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...hot00042-2.jpg

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...hot00042-3.jpg

Post marriage... I would have to say marathon character capping along with raiding consistently every three days were kind of were no longer an option.

Any player that had to take long breaks or reduced their gametime due to military leave, family emergency, real life issues etc. fall in this category. The reason you probably have a hard time running across more of us is because we have to now prioritize how we play the game and find it more efficient to solo over hopping in a pick up group and waiting around for 40 minutes for it to fill.

I used to easily manage 7-8 active characters across 4 servers in multiple guilds. It was very satisfying to log on each server to find every single character on raid timer. Now, my activity is limited to 1-2 characters in 1 server. I could play an hour here and there but I pull in 2,000-3,000 renown each time I play which pales in comparison to my fellow guild members.

[slarden]

"These people." "Solid history of being a competent player." it's what you've recruited into your guild yet you're claiming that you haven't come across them.

"Most of the unguilded folks that were recruited into my guild were inactive for some period of time and booted from their previous guilds for inactivity."

I could use myself as an example. Before I got married I wasted quite a bit of time goofing off in this game. Helping a guild member to lay out birthday cake djinns in house d to spell out "happy b-day" for example...

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...hot00042-2.jpg

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...hot00042-3.jpg

Post marriage... I would have to say marathon character capping along with raiding consistently every three days were kind of were no longer an option.

Any player that had to take long breaks or reduced their gametime due to military leave, family emergency, real life issues etc. fall in this category. The reason you probably have a hard time running across more of us is because we have to now prioritize how we play the game and find it more efficient to solo over hopping in a pick up group and waiting around for 40 minutes for it to fill.

I used to easily manage 7-8 active characters across 4 servers in multiple guilds. It was very satisfying to log on each server to find every single character on raid timer. Now, my activity is limited to 1-2 characters in 1 server. I could play an hour here and there but I pull in 2,000-3,000 renown each time I play which pales in comparison to my fellow guild members.

Again, there is no problem with people not being able to get into guilds on Sarlona. There wasn't before this guild change and there wasn't after this guild change. I think it's fine to have a reasonable debate, but your small guild bonus argument is far from reasonable.

1) a 6 player guild adding one person is the equivalent of adding 3 people which more than makes up for the .15 loss of 6 people. You are still up significantly. The odds of not benefiting are very low. If a guild wants to add someone they aren't going to say "well this person may only earn 20% or less renown than everyone in the guild so lets not add them". That's ridiculous.
2) At higher levels, unguilded players are very rare and often don't want to join a guild when they are unguilded. It's the exception when I am in a quest or raid with an unguilded player. There is not a real problem existing with people being excluded from guilds except for people that alienate themselves from others for reasons that have nothing to do with renown or decay. People have no problem getting into a guild and never did.

The only change that should be made to guild bonus is to increase it at this point so that small guilds can earn enough renown to cover decay without soloing and zerging. There needs to be some counterbalance to the current system and although I think reduced decay is preferable I think guild bonus is also a way to help small guilds.

[Hendrik]

slarden
You are going to have to start producing these people with a solid history that can't get into guilds because I am not finding them on Sarlona.

Can't tell people to produce information when you yourself won't do the same.

Just does not work that way.