Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

Hmm, no that would create situations when guilds hae "Problem members" they need to boot.

No, that would set up situations where guilds actually have to decide whether removing the "problem" member is worth giving up what they contributed to the guild.

I really don't see how any well run guild could have a "problem" around long enough or a high enough number of "problems" for it to be a whole lot anyway. Even if they do, I see this as less of an issue than keeping a mechanic in the game that can be used to exploit other players simply to make it fair to guilds with "problem" players would be.

Really, why does a guild have any right to the renown earned by an active player they are booting?

[Hendrik]

First, at the current rate the servers will get turned down and DDO 2 will be online, before we cap. So your argument goes into oblivion. But without multiboxing and farm grinding renown, NO small guild may reach lv. 100 in any meaningful time, even if very active.

Second, I monitored our guild. We had a plus of 65452 renown yesterday, where decay already is deducted. We currently are at 10,200,000 renown total. This renown plus we had due to the ongoing event and due to having 6 out of 12 members active yesterday. Which is something to archieve, especially when counting in that one active member is a recently gone account (by players choice, we would have liked to retain him) and 3 accounts currently are inactive due to personal issues. I would call 50% members active one day a very good activity rate. And nonetheless we only were able to bring in 65k renown. Why? Because we ran a lot of stuff on epic levels (less renown, oh yeah), some challenges and only a few quests with low level toons (in order to help a new member to gain experience with the game). For the total of the week we had some 200k renown (we mostly consist of people with jobs, so about 1-2 hours / day are the most we can do during week) growth. It will still take us 200 weeks, not counting in ever growing renown decay, to reach lv. 100. This is about 4 years at least - until then most members will already be playing NWKO at the current rate and development of DDO in general.

So, please, stop arguing like a wisea** here. No, it is not activity, that defines success or no success of a small guild in reaching lv. 100. That is defined by actually being hyper active and cheating (like multiboxing, I call this cheating).

Fasle.

Look at the leaderboards. They are highly populated with small guilds on the first page of EVERY server.

And who defines 'meaningful time'? YOu? Me? Turbine? What is meaningful to one is not to another.

Thank you for the name calling too, really shows your true colors.

Your no longer worth the time to try and debate this with.

Good luck.

[slarden]

Fasle.

Look at the leaderboards. They are highly populated with small guilds on the first page of EVERY server.

And those guilds represent far less than 1% of the small guilds. They really have their own classification as power gamer guilds. Sarlona has a large guilds in the 90s that meets such criteria so no - they are not all small. The fact is most small guilds are casual and have no chance to ever reach 100 and most likely not even 70. My guild is probably somewhere between.

I don't think it makes sense to put huge penalties on all small guilds because a tiny fraction of small guilds can reach 100.

[Gremmlynn]

I am all for this idea provided the following applies:

100% renown loss WILL apply when:
Character leaves on bad terms (by selecting that option when they voluntarily drop from guild)
If a character is expelled by an officer of the guild (regardless of if the account is inactive or not)

100% renown loss WILL NOT apply when:
Character leaves on amicable terms (by selecting that option when they voluntarily drop from the guild)
Character is deleted from the Character Select screen while a member of a guild

Should be easily applied as the items above can be assigned different values.

I wouldn't even include bad terms in this. Makes it to easy for someone to use their renown as leverage in guild decisions and the ensuing drama that would cause.

[Gremmlynn]

Which isn't a problem for a small guild....... But is or can be a much larger problem within a larger social group, as the chances of having an issue with a particluar player(s) is much greater. You see there are upsides and downsides to all sizes of social groups. You want all the benefits, and none of the downsides of small guilds. The large guilds already have to deal with all kinds of issues and now you want to penalize them even further.

See how that works...

Just as the likelihood is greater, the damage is proportionally smaller. The big question is; If a player is causing a big enough problem to be worthy of expelling, why were they kept around long enough to gain much renown in the first place?

[Chaos000]

I wouldn't even include bad terms in this. Makes it to easy for someone to use their renown as leverage in guild decisions and the ensuing drama that would cause.

If booting a player would result in 100% renown gain removal, how is a player threatening to take 100% of their renown with them leverage?

[Gremmlynn]

If booting a player would result in 100% renown gain removal, how is a player threatening to take 100% of their renown with them leverage?

"Do things my way or I'm taking my renown and going home."

I could see this mainly as a problem if a longer term player develops a problem with a shorter term player. "Boot him or lose me and my renown" doesn't have as much bullying power when it's "Boot him or lose 25% of my renown". Removing most of the leverage from doing otherwise tends to lead to people acting in a more reasonable manner.

[Nestroy]

Fasle.

Look at the leaderboards. They are highly populated with small guilds on the first page of EVERY server.

And who defines 'meaningful time'? YOu? Me? Turbine? What is meaningful to one is not to another.

Thank you for the name calling too, really shows your true colors.

Your no longer worth the time to try and debate this with.

Good luck.

I called you out for one single statement. OK, now, this shows your true colors then, well met.

Now, as you mentioned it first, please check the leaderboards somewhat more in depth. There are several small guilds looking from the top. How many? How many out of how many small guilds? I will tell you - depending on the server you are looking at there are one to two handfull of small guilds looking from the top. Then we see the rise of the big guilds. And then, and only then, I see several small guilds again - on levels 65 - 75 mainly, with the best reaching lvs. 85 - 90. Now, that´s a level we in our guild will reach eventually, lv. 85. This can be done by a normally active small guild. And there it ends. All else is zerging and multiboxing for small guilds. Always has been, will perhaps remain always that way.

So, what can be seen out of this? Argonessen, as example: From about 14.900 guilds on the server I can only see 4 small guilds in the top 10. The next fairly small guild is 15th place and lv. 89. Synergia is a fairly big guild and zergzerg will have it´s name from something, I would guess.

So, following your argument, I would expect to see mostly small guilds in the top ten of Argonessen. But alas, I cannot see that much - 4 out of 10. And in the top 25 I can see about 7 smaller guilds - with lv. 84 or above. Not exactly what I would expect to find going after your argument.

Well, this certainly might be looking different on other servers. Wayfinder as an example simply does not have many big guilds, so surprise there aren´t many on the top. But further surprise, the 25th guild is lv. 38.

Other top 25 guilds:
Ghallanda: 3-5 small guilds, depending on definition.
Khyber: 3-7, dod
Sarlona: 12 - 13, now, there your theory holds true, if only by a single guild.
Cannith: 5 - 10, dod
Thelanis: 4 - 10, dod
Orien: 3 - 11, dod

So, on most servers the bigger guilds have the upside by now- this certainly has changed since the renown decay system update. We are now 2 months into the new system and already the big guilds have taken over.

Not that I am looking at sore grapes here now. I am really happy for the bigger guilds that they finally have a chance to get to the top. But why in hells world hitting the small ones extra? And tell me what you want, the formula had been minimum decay 10 + guild account size, not 10 + max(guild account size; 10). If renown gets marginalized for big guilds, why not marginalizing across the boards?

[Chaos000]

And those guilds represent far less than 1% of the small guilds.

Guilds that spam guild invites also represent less than 1%.

The point is there are guilds that spam invites and there are small guilds that can and have reached 100.

Among all the guilds at the highest level, small guilds will continue to take up a significant portion of that population and in doing so weakening the argument that only large guilds will hit max level.

Ever consider that some small guilds do not want other small guilds to have an easier time hitting max level?

The counterpoint is that under the old system, smaller guilds grossly outnumbered larger guilds at the highest level even if the larger guild had an equal number of players with the same level of commitment and activity. In fact, without looking at the numbers I am 100% certain that there were 0 character capped guilds at the highest level under the system of decay per account. This is a prime example of guilds having a higher probability of meeting or exceeding their earning potential in smaller guilds and guilds having a lower probability of meeting their earning potential as the size increases.

[Nestroy]

Guilds that spam guild invites also represent less than 1%.

The point is there are guilds that spam invites and there are small guilds that can and have reached 100.

Among all the guilds at the highest level, small guilds will continue to take up a significant portion of that population and in doing so weakening the argument that only large guilds will hit max level.

Ever consider that some small guilds do not want other small guilds to have an easier time hitting max level?

The counterpoint is that under the old system, smaller guilds grossly outnumbered larger guilds at the highest level even if the larger guild had an equal number of players with the same level of commitment and activity. In fact, without looking at the numbers I am 100% certain that there were 0 character capped guilds at the highest level under the system of decay per account. This is a prime example of guilds having a higher probability of meeting or exceeding their earning potential in smaller guilds and guilds having a lower probability of meeting their earning potential as the size increases.

Well, we had that discussion before changing the system - this exactly was the argument for change. So check. This has been altered and happy we go with a lot of big guilds flushing upwards the leaderboards. regarding your significant portion, this dwindles and changes at the moment. Give it 2-3 months more time and there will only be a handful of small guilds per server (Sarlona will take longer, whatever the reason) in the top 25. And we will have a couple of brand new lv. 100 guilds to celebrate.

So since the system change your argument became moot.

Gratulations to those guilds that increased in size AND activity.

Ok, and what about the 15.000 guilds rest that populate the servers? Most of them fairly small?

[Chaos000]

"Do things my way or I'm taking my renown and going home."

I could see this mainly as a problem if a longer term player develops a problem with a shorter term player. "Boot him or lose me and my renown" doesn't have as much bullying power when it's "Boot him or lose 25% of my renown". Removing most of the leverage from doing otherwise tends to lead to people acting in a more reasonable manner.

Don't know about you but if a long term player made a threat like this, I'm pretty sure in most guilds it would not be tolerated.

The other side of the coin is that if you generate enough renown, a guild will be far less likely to treat you badly in order to get you to leave the guild on your own accord. The way to get people to act in a more reasonable manner is a combination of self-regulation and what their peers will tolerate.

A bigger issue would likely be if an officer in the guild (I speak from experience) had a real life issue with the guild leader and maliciously started booting all the non-officer's in the guild.

[Chaos000]

So since the system change your argument became moot.

I agree. Character capped guilds now have the ability to hit the highest guild level. The assumption that they all will hit renown cap every single day because renown is marginalized remains to be seen.

Because guilds have a higher probability of meeting or exceeding their earning potential in smaller guilds, and a lower probability of meeting their earning potential as the size increases... Moderately sized guilds will remain at the top of the leaderboards over much larger counterparts EVEN with the system against them. If THIS is wrong (I admit: assumption on my part) I am totally on the smaller guilds are unfairly disadvantaged bandwagon

Ok, and what about the 15.000 guilds rest that populate the servers? Most of them fairly small?

Well this depends too... I understand that the number of small guilds outnumber medium and large. If you take the total number of accounts in the small guilds and compare them to the total number of accounts in the medium and large guilds what would the percentage be?

Player population % has far more weight than the number of groupings because it translates to sum total of revenue gaining potential.

[Hendrik]

And those guilds represent far less than 1% of the small guilds. They really have their own classification as power gamer guilds. Sarlona has a large guilds in the 90s that meets such criteria so no - they are not all small. The fact is most small guilds are casual and have no chance to ever reach 100 and most likely not even 70. My guild is probably somewhere between.

I don't think it makes sense to put huge penalties on all small guilds because a tiny fraction of small guilds can reach 100.

Again, not all Guilds can or will reach 100! And if you are a casual player in a casual Guild, well duh, you won't advance fast or far, that is how it works. If your not online and active your can't advance. The fix for that is to be online and playing and not asking for a handout because you can't, won't, or don't want to play.

You 'should' be shooting for 85 then you will have just about everything you would ever want.


Fine, want to play semantics game, look at all the Guilds on Sarlona that are higher then you and still advancing but are still small. What is it that they are doing that you are not? Hint: they are playing together and running content together. They are active together. They are playing as a Guild. Stop zerg running content solo. Invite 5 more guildmates into a group and go Quest. The group will pull more renown then you can solo zerging content. That is, if your Guildmates even give a **** about gaining levels over playing together, ever think about that? Maybe gaining levels is not that important to them and that why you are off alone zerging content. You have placed more value on levles over your Guildmates.

You will only get the Guild levels you have 'earned' and nothing more. Activity = renown gains. Not playing does not get your renown, large or small in size.


Odd, no comment on the rest of my post. Not really, but odd anyways.

[smatt]

Yeah it sounds you like boot many people if it is so important to keep renown of people you booted.

Um no... The guild I'm in has actually booted 2 people total in 6 years. While a few others have left.... And of course many have simply left the game.

it's a much bigger problem for small guilds actually because each member represents a much larger percentage of the total renown earned. We get a 2 week penalty to our small guild bonus in addition the lost renown.

But it's a bad idea in any case. It solves nothing......

You are the one who wants all the benefits and furthermore want to see small guilds from having a chance to advance. You want the flexibility to boot people at will and keep 75% of their renown. I am sorry but I find this practice very bad for the DDO community.

No what I want is a system that rewards groups of people for playing the game, the larger groups that is continually active should be RTEWARDED for that play.

You want to keep renown that other people earned that you kicked out of your guild!! I would like to see the members of our guild keep the renown they earned.

See above....

It seems more like you want to the easy button here.... and have it. Just to think of it, when guilds like yours reach 100 with some cushion there will effectively be no penalty for booting members. I really think this needs to be looked at.

You really have no idea what it is too be in a larger guild do you? You see, you onyl see it from that little guild aspect. As I said above, we dont' boot people... I know there's punk/jerk guilds that do such things, but those are far less common than guilds such as mine.... There's no way Turbine can control jerks..... No matter if YOU think they should.

MOST guilds even those big large ones aren't full of punks and or jerks running them. As I've said before, we never adjusted our membership because of renown. We simply accepted that we had hit where we were going to hit.. And that was level 82-84....... It's nice that Turbine changed the system to allow the LARGE guilds who didn't cheat or use extreme measures, to actually move up a bit... We will stil likely cap before 100 though....

[smatt]

Again, not all Guilds can or will reach 100! And if you are a casual player in a casual Guild, well duh, you won't advance fast or far, that is how it works. If your not online and active your can't advance. The fix for that is to be online and playing and not asking for a handout because you can't, won't, or don't want to play.

You 'should' be shooting for 85 then you will have just about everything you would ever want.


Fine, want to play semantics game, look at all the Guilds on Sarlona that are higher then you and still advancing but are still small. What is it that they are doing that you are not? Hint: they are playing together and running content together. They are active together. They are playing as a Guild. Stop zerg running content solo. Invite 5 more guildmates into a group and go Quest. The group will pull more renown then you can solo zerging content. That is, if your Guildmates even give a **** about gaining levels over playing together, ever think about that? Maybe gaining levels is not that important to them and that why you are off alone zerging content. You have placed more value on levles over your Guildmates.

You will only get the Guild levels you have 'earned' and nothing more. Activity = renown gains. Not playing does not get your renown, large or small in size.


Odd, no comment on the rest of my post. Not really, but odd anyways.

Some people simply don't understand this "earned" thing... They want it all "given" to them... Because it's a game and be given things is FUN.

[smatt]

Yes. Can you believe some people think they should be able to keep 75% of the renown for booting a member. Those same people believe people from large guilds should also get penalized with more decay per person rather than being able to keep the same amount of renown that people from their guilds keep?

Those guilds definitely don't understand earning.

I can't speak for how other guilds treat people... Only my own... So in your mind your guild... The one that doesn't even group together... One that is bacisally you and a couple casual players, should be equal when it comes to guild accomplishments? Yes, this huge sense of entitlement.... Guilds that want to advance actually concentrate on doing just that.... Which does effect the other aspects of their play for a while.... Guilds that sit on their behinds or just concentrate on other aspects of the game don't advance or do it much more slowly.. Guilds that are active also advance much faster... That is EXACTLY how it should be...

Like right now, we're sitting a few hundred K from lvl 85.... After well over a year of being stuck between 82-84 with decay in the range of 125-140k A DAY.... With many casual a few hours a week players (none of which were ever booted) and NO FREE small guild bonus... Most of the guild is actively driving for renown... *gasp.... So the peopel who can play most days were carrying all those casuals... To cover with NO FREE bonus the over 1700 per day per member (account not character) decay we had for OVER a year...

So I don't want to hear aobut this unfair stuff.. The system needs a few tweaks.. BUt it's certainly FAR better than it was... Where it's not a virtual welfare hammock, it still takees effort to advance and maintain.. But it's not punitive...

If you want to advance then DO something about it.. Rather than begging, get some people in your guild that play.... I'm sure that in due course some adjsutments for small guilds will be made by the Devs as Varg said above...

[slarden]

I can't speak for how other guilds treat people... Only my own... So in your mind your guild... The one that doesn't even group together... One that is bacisally you and a couple casual players, should be equal when it comes to guild accomplishments? Yes, this huge sense of entitlement.... Guilds that want to advance actually concentrate on doing just that.... Which does effect the other aspects of their play for a while.... Guilds that sit on their behinds or just concentrate on other aspects of the game don't advance or do it much more slowly.. Guilds that are active also advance much faster... That is EXACTLY how it should be...

Like right now, we're sitting a few hundred K from lvl 85.... After well over a year of being stuck between 82-84 with decay in the range of 125-140k A DAY.... With many casual a few hours a week players (none of which were ever booted) and NO FREE small guild bonus... Most of the guild is actively driving for renown... *gasp.... So the peopel who can play most days were carrying all those casuals... To cover with NO FREE bonus the over 1700 per day per member (account not character) decay we had for OVER a year...

So I don't want to hear aobut this unfair stuff.. The system needs a few tweaks.. BUt it's certainly FAR better than it was... Where it's not a virtual welfare hammock, it still takees effort to advance and maintain.. But it's not punitive...

If you want to advance then DO something about it.. Rather than begging, get some people in your guild that play.... I'm sure that in due course some adjsutments for small guilds will be made by the Devs as Varg said above...

Why do you find it necessary to lie to try and make your point? Where did you get the idea that people in my guild never group together? Well you made it up as you often make things up in your posts.

You crack me. You talk about "earning" and "entitlement" in a system where a person from a small guild gets 10x mroe decay than a person from another large gulid.

The effort isn't the problem here. The problem is that folks in guilds of 10 or less get so much more decay than other guilds. And although the old formula was flawed and did slightly favor small guilds (and it favored small guilds more than gulds of 10 or less), the new system vastly favors large guilds. It's not just a slight advantage.

Nobody is begging here. Turbine asked for feedback. Many many people from small guilds commented with very consistent messages. A few people from large guilds that are bitter about the guilds on the leaderboards decided to grieve the folks in small guilds providing their feedback.

Our guild is doing something about advancing, but we aren't going to follow your really bad advice about how to do it.

Also keep in mind that small guild bonus never gave any guild an advantage, it simply reduced the disadvantage a little.

[smatt]

Why do you find it necessary to lie to try and make your point? Where did you get the idea that people in my guild never group together? Well you made it up as you often make things up in your posts.

Um YOU said you're the one carrying your guild and that the others are rarely on.... I didn't lie.. I don't lie.. I have no reason to...

You crack me. You talk about "earning" and "entitlement" in a system where a person from a small guild gets 10x more decay than a person from another large gulid.

As I've said I can see SOME kind of an adjustment in that... But not a major one.. You get free renown now, and always have... Is it others fault YOU refuse to work on renown and choose to do other things? Perhaps if oyu spent the hour a day you spend posting here getting renown.. Or is it that you can't because you're posting on your bosses time?

The effort isn't the problem here. The problem is that folks in guilds of 10 or less get so much more decay than other guilds. And although the old formula was flawed and did slightly favor small guilds (and it favored small guilds more than gulds of 10 or less), the new system vastly favors large guilds. It's not just a slight advantage.

I have agreed with that many times.. Again, watching you post, you seem to poo-poo on any hints others have given you.. You dont' want to recruit... You dont' want to adjust your playstyle so you get more renown.. You've made your own bed... Maybe I'm wrong though, and you actually DO try and get renown jsut as MY guild does... So that we get the benefit of that EFFORT...

Nobody is begging here. Turbine asked for feedback. Many many people from small guilds commented with very consistent messages. A few people from large guilds that are bitter about the guilds on the leaderboards decided to grieve the folks in small guilds providing their feedback.

I see you and a couple others... Now then, I'm usre there are other small guilds that are frustrated with the 20 accounts thing... And I'm sure that Vargiullle has read WAY more of your posts on the subject then can be tolerated...

Our guild is doing something about advancing, but we aren't going to follow your really bad advice about how to do it.

It's apparent you don't follow anybodies advice... For others sake I hope they adjsut the system.. For someone like you I hope they don't....

Also keep in mind that small guild bonus never gave any guild an advantage, it simply reduced the disadvantage a little.

The join a REAL guild....

[Hendrik]

Groups regardless of size should be rewarded for playing and not penalized due to size.

Ok, where is my size bonus for being in a large guild?

I do not want to be penalized by not being given a bonus to renown for being in a large guild.

Stop penalizing large guilds! It's not fair!

[Kaisoni]

Just throwing this out there.
There have been a lot of clever formulas suggested by users to fix the whole guild renown problem.
Why not just something super simple?
No decay.
No small guild bonus.
Guild renown gained by players is divided by half the active members in the guild down to a minimum of 1 renown.

Different sized guilds have no real advantage over each other.
Casual guilds can still get to 100 but it will take them longer than non-casuals (but not anywhere near as long as it does with decay).
Power gamers will still be ahead, because they're working hard for it.

As for leader boards, that won't be an issue if renown can just continue to be gained. And to make it fair for new guilds to catch up, there can be renown decay after level 100. At a constant rate that increases in a linear way, say 5k decay per level over 100.

That way everyone can get the buffs if they WORK for it.

Everyone has to do the same amount of work, as oppose to casual players having to do LOTS more work to make up for the reason they can't play often (because lets be fair, if people play a game then they like playing it. I'm sure that if people could play the game all the time, then they probably would. People have reasons for not playing - more often than not pretty good ones.)

And hell. Turbine could just add some ship buffs that are ONLY gold seal, but make them drop in chests at the rate that most DDO store items do. That way Turbine will still make money from guild ships other than impatient guilds that are still growing.

Is there any problem with that at all?