Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

And why did those large complain?

Because to advance you had to kick people. It was not an inclusive system but exclusive. Ever try to overcome 100k decay a day? You think you have it bad with a paltry 20k?

Fact is, your advancing now and better then you ever have before. You listened to tips given to you and applied them to your gameplay and low and behold, they work. Keep utilizing those tips and the more that you have been given and will be given and things will continue to change until your guilds activity level reaches the same level as decay. At that point you will be in the same boat as every other guild on every other server. You will have achieved your limit based on guild size and activity level. Then you will have more choices to make.

Here are more tips to help you and your Guild;

Organize Guild Events. Favor runs. EE loot runs. Guild Bday runs. Just run stuff at or higher then your character level to maximize renown.

The system is NOT completly out of balance. It is far closer to being balanced then it ever has been and with a minor tweak or two it will be even better.

This is the reason developers ultimately made the change, but there were many complaints about the decay issue that had nothing to do with kicking out people. Most guilds never did this and complained about being stuck. As a result of being stuck some large guilds changed how they operated just as some small guilds change how they operate now to deal with decay.

Our guild is doing just fine the way it is now. I took some good advice and it worked. What you are suggesting really isn't helping because there are no problems with the guilds' activity level or the what people in the guild are doing. I will never ask anyone in the guild to change how they run quests for guild renown optimization.

I am glad large guilds were helped, but unfortunately guilds of 10 or less are now worse off than they were before the change while it's significantly easier for large guilds.

We do need an adjustment and I am hopeful we will see one soon. I think lowering the fixed account multipler from 20 to 10 would be a great short-term solution.

[Gremmlynn]

My main change is no longer forming random lfms and also turning down some groups.

Personally, this is the primary reason I see for joining a guild in the first place.

[Gremmlynn]

Admitedly the biggest down side is that a person in a small guild will be responsible for a larger amount of the renown raked in, but it's also easier to keep track of people in a small guild. You'll probably know the people, and be more willing to accept that someone's not going to contribute for whatever reason (and that's always been, and going to be an issue really). Edit: But they'll never go backwards under level 100.

And while it will slow larger guilds down a bit, it will matter less. And they'll never go backwards (Edit: under level 100) because of it. Barely a reason to kick someone.

It'll stop the korthos army guilds because there won't be an advantage to it (nor a real disadvantage).

There will be guilds that keep themselves casual-free and boot people (but they probably also won't invite people unless they're willing to be active).

And there will be guilds that don't care about the rankings and will accept casual people with the knowledge that they will get to 100 eventually.

Here's the way I see it playing out.

In your average large guild of 100 you will have, on average about 20 players on each day. 10 of those will likely be the same every day with the other 10 made up of whoever from the other 90 happen to log in that day. if each of these players earns, lets say 1000 renown to keep it simple, we set 20,000 renown/50=400 renown. Now if those 10 everyday players say so long to the other 90 we get only 10,000 renown earned/day but it's divided by only 5 so they actually get 2000 renown. The other 90 can decide to stay together, at least until they notice that every time they log in nobody else is on and log back out before wondering off to some other game.

Maybe I just have a cynical view of things, but this is how I see it.

[Hendrik]

This is the reason developers ultimately made the change, but there were many complaints about the decay issue that had nothing to do with kicking out people. Most guilds never did this and complained about being stuck. As a result of being stuck some large guilds changed how they operated just as some small guilds change how they operate now to deal with decay.

Our guild is doing just fine the way it is now. I took some good advice and it worked. What you are suggesting really isn't helping because there are no problems with the guilds' activity level or the what people in the guild are doing. I will never ask anyone in the guild to change how they run quests for guild renown optimization.

I am glad large guilds were helped, but unfortunately guilds of 10 or less are now worse off than they were before the change while it's significantly easier for large guilds.

We do need an adjustment and I am hopeful we will see one soon. I think lowering the fixed account multipler from 20 to 10 would be a great short-term solution.

So very happy to hear that.

Just acknowledge that at some point you, and I, will plateau based on level and activity.

We DO need changes, but no more short term solutions as we will be right back here again. Lower it to 10 and your plateau is just pushed out a little further, just like any change will do. Large Guild will still advance further and faster as they should based on size and activity.

I still think the best solution is to leave it at 20 and add 5-10 to the size bonus allowing Guilds to add more members and be inclusive, as we all should, and further increase renown earning potential. Again, this would only push out the plateau a little further. We also must acknowledge that all Guild sizes will plateau at some point. Where that is depends on level, size, and activity. The power to overcome these should always rest in the player/guild members hands.

And my suggestion was only ideas to rally the troops around a common cause to achieve a higher goal - and it works! Not only that, great for Guild morale.

[Chaos000]

The intent is to address concerns from guilds and guild leaders regarding the impact of optimizing guild size in order to gain or maintain guild levels.

This is the reason developers ultimately made the change, but there were many complaints about the decay issue that had nothing to do with kicking out people.

The temporary adjustments to the Guild Renown system was not to deal with complaints about the decay issue but to deal with the complaints that guilds had to optimize guild size (kicking out people) in order to gain or maintain guild levels.

Therefore. Less active casual players no longer come with additional personal decay for the more active players to work off. Most importantly, kicking less active casual players is no longer a manner in which guilds of all sizes could reduce decay.

It's clear that complaints about the decay, has nothing to do with kicking out people. However, any additional balance changes must take in consideration that any benefits proposed that can be gained by reducing in size assigns a penalty to less active casual player and undermining the intention behind the 15.2 guild renown changes.

One thing for Developers to consider: If guilds of 10 or less get assigned higher bonuses to meet that of a guild of 11, the assertion that guilds of 10 or less are now worse off will no longer be brought up.

[smatt]

The temporary adjustments to the Guild Renown system was not to deal with complaints about the decay issue but to deal with the complaints that guilds had to optimize guild size (kicking out people) in order to gain or maintain guild levels.

Therefore. Less active casual players no longer come with additional personal decay for the more active players to work off. Most importantly, kicking less active casual players is no longer a manner in which guilds of all sizes could reduce decay.

It's clear that complaints about the decay, has nothing to do with kicking out people. However, any additional balance changes must take in consideration that any benefits proposed that can be gained by reducing in size assigns a penalty to less active casual player and undermining the intention behind the 15.2 guild renown changes.

One thing for Developers to consider: If guilds of 10 or less get assigned higher bonuses to meet that of a guild of 11, the assertion that guilds of 10 or less are now worse off will no longer be brought up.

Indeed, and this is where the problem gets difficult..... Anytime a guild of any size gains a bonus benefit or on th econverse a penalty increase, the system incourages at least some guilds to adjust their size, possibly to the detriment of more casual players.

Removing decay altogether would seem the easy fix..... But for obvious reasons that's likely off the table. I can see why Turbine hasn't moved quikly on this issue, since they're likely in the same discussion loop...

[slarden]

The temporary adjustments to the Guild Renown system was not to deal with complaints about the decay issue but to deal with the complaints that guilds had to optimize guild size (kicking out people) in order to gain or maintain guild levels.

Therefore. Less active casual players no longer come with additional personal decay for the more active players to work off. Most importantly, kicking less active casual players is no longer a manner in which guilds of all sizes could reduce decay.

It's clear that complaints about the decay, has nothing to do with kicking out people. However, any additional balance changes must take in consideration that any benefits proposed that can be gained by reducing in size assigns a penalty to less active casual player and undermining the intention behind the 15.2 guild renown changes.

One thing for Developers to consider: If guilds of 10 or less get assigned higher bonuses to meet that of a guild of 11, the assertion that guilds of 10 or less are now worse off will no longer be brought up.

You are taking what I said out of context sir. I was agreeing that the developers made this change because of the issues raised related to "booting" and not accepting new members which is precisely what the size optimization refers to. Please look at what I quoted and it will be crystal clear. However, I was noting that most of the complaints in old threads on the forums didn't cite that issue. They complained of high decay in general causing guilds to move backwards.

My complaint about decay is really more related to the time pressures it creates. It forces guilds to choose between running content faster or moving backwards. It demoralizes by taking away renown that was earned.

In the case of the 3 guilds currently beiing compared per Hendrick's wishes. If all were level 76 guilds daily decay per member would be:

Daily decay per member @ level 76
Guardians of House Cannith with 9 members (renown earning power of 32 with guild bonus): 1,878 (529 adjusted for size bonus)
Eternal Wrath with 79 members: 214
Bathory Hordes with 365 members: 46

At level 84 the numbers would like this:

Daily decay per member @ level 84
Guardians of House Cannith with 9 members: 3,161 (890 adjusted for size bonus)
Eternal Wrath with 79 members: 360
Bathory Hordes with 365 members: 78

Don't get me wrong. I don't want any benefits taken away from the large guilds. I am happy that those guilds receieved some decay relief. I am glad to see that both those larger guilds gained 1 level already since we first started keeping track on Thursday.

I just think decay prevents guilds from moving forward. I think it's perfectly reasonable that small guilds should advance slower since they have less people. However, I don't think they should be held at a level artifically just because they are slower since the levels are tied to in-game rewards.

As I looked at the Eternal Wrath guild website I noticed they said they only accept people they've run with many times. That is really not unlike our guild. However, we almost never run with people that aren't in guilds because almost everyone is in a guild or unguilded by choice. So I don't think creating a system where guilds have to grow makes sense to me. I have no interest in recruiting people that are already in a guild.

I think guilds do need to be active of course. Since we started tracking guilds per Hendrick's wishes my guild has the highest renown earned per member of the 3 guilds even after factoring in the renown bonus. So it appears I don't need any advice about making my guild more active. My guild also has the highest percentage of renown taken away by decay even though EW is 9 levels higher.

[Chaos000]

Indeed, and this is where the problem gets difficult..... Anytime a guild of any size gains a bonus benefit or on the converse a penalty increase, the system encourages at least some guilds to adjust their size, possibly to the detriment of more casual players.

Yes. This is what I keep trying to point out.

The only way to prevent this from occurring is to make size not the factor for determining a bonus benefit or a penalty increase.

Here are some examples:

Bonus based not on size but on guild level. Apply guild level bonus that applies around the level that small guilds stall at so that they are able to gain progress to 85.

Bonus based not on guild size but on ship size. Smaller ship, bigger bonus. With the exception of Astral Diamond bought ships, larger ships decreases the bonus. Desire will be to maximize the number of hookpoints but all guilds can now get the highest level of bonuses.

Eliminate decay, guild shrines now apply a decay per type of shrine. Turbine point bought shrines = zero decay. Guilds now determine the amount of decay they decide to handle. Guilds not buying any shrines now can progress that much more faster.

[slarden]

So very happy to hear that.

Just acknowledge that at some point you, and I, will plateau based on level and activity.

We DO need changes, but no more short term solutions as we will be right back here again. Lower it to 10 and your plateau is just pushed out a little further, just like any change will do. Large Guild will still advance further and faster as they should based on size and activity.

I still think the best solution is to leave it at 20 and add 5-10 to the size bonus allowing Guilds to add more members and be inclusive, as we all should, and further increase renown earning potential. Again, this would only push out the plateau a little further. We also must acknowledge that all Guild sizes will plateau at some point. Where that is depends on level, size, and activity. The power to overcome these should always rest in the player/guild members hands.

And my suggestion was only ideas to rally the troops around a common cause to achieve a higher goal - and it works! Not only that, great for Guild morale.

You will not plateau based on your recent progress. you are earning over 1,500 renown per day per member since we started our test run. Decay @ level 99 will be less than 1,000 renown per day per member for your guild. We'll have to see if the average declines during the week but I am doubting progressing will be an issue for your guild based on the #s. Bathory Hordes will also reach level 100. They are earning 435 renown per member per day and at level 100 they will be getting 185 decay per day per member. I am happy for both your guilds.

I agree that large guilds should be able to faster. I do not agree they should be able to progress further since the levels are tied to in-game rewards. The ceiling for small guilds isn't making any sense to me.

My reasons for wanting to push the decay multiplier to 10 have to do with the high # of small guilds I see stuck below level 55. It would allow them to upgrade to the level 55 ship.

Rallying the troops is not really necessary since there is no problem with what they are doing. We do not have a problem with renown earning at the moment. Decay is a problem but we are currently @ a net positive.

[Chaos000]

My guild also has the highest percentage of renown taken away by decay even though EW is 9 levels higher.

If you add another personal f2p account, or someone added their bank toon they log into but never play, would it not reduce the percentage of renown taken away by decay?

The main issue with using decay divided by number of accounts is the assumption that each account has a measure of activity higher than zero. Provided a player has logged in a month period, they are counted "active" even if they did not gain any renown.

If they had a way for players that gain less than X renown to have their renown gain "count" towards total guild renown gain but the player does not factor into the guild's "size" that would be ideal in my opinion.

[slarden]

If you add another personal f2p account, or someone added their bank toon they log into but never play, would it not reduce the percentage of renown taken away by decay?

The main issue with using decay divided by number of accounts is the assumption that each account has a measure of activity higher than zero. Provided a player has logged in a month period, they are counted "active" even if they did not gain any renown.

If they had a way for players that gain less than X renown to have their renown gain "count" towards total guild renown gain but the player does not factor into the guild's "size" that would be ideal in my opinion.

Agreed, however, this issue is independent of guild size as this is an issue for guilds of all sizes.

Ultimately only people can earn the renown necessary to advance and cover decay. What this means is that the active members in small/large guilds would have to earn more than the #s dispalyed. It would change the relative ratios.

[Artos_Fabril]

Bonus based not on guild size but on ship size. Smaller ship, bigger bonus. With the exception of Astral Diamond bought ships, larger ships decreases the bonus. Desire will be to maximize the number of hookpoints but all guilds can now get the highest level of bonuses.

Eliminate decay, guild shrines now apply a decay per type of shrine. Turbine point bought shrines = zero decay. Guilds now determine the amount of decay they decide to handle. Guilds not buying any shrines now can progress that much more faster.

I mentioned something similar earlier in this thread, allow me to amend and expand on the notion a bit.

Rather than a guild size bonus, or a ship size bonus, institute a "maintenance fee" or "tax" based on the ship type.

These numbers are for example purposes only. I assume that turbine will set these amounts based on what they determine to be their own best interests if this system or one like it is adopted.
Windspyre Sparrow: None
Stormglory Bolt: 44 renown/day
Windspyre Falcon: 2000 renown/day
Stormglory Tempest: 2250 renown/day
Windspyre Gryphon: 20000 renown/day
Stormglory Typhoon: 20000 renown/day

Now, this might be seen to unfairly favor large guilds based on the same (flawed, IMO) logic that declares decay based on guild level irrespective of number of players unfairly favors large guilds. So to counter that we give each amenity renown "upkeep" an number of uses between "upkeep payments". From a lore standpoint, these are seen as being available to you because you are well-known as a protector of Stormreach (and also the rest of Ebberon and the forgettable realms), but if you're seen to rely overmuch on the help of others (shrine-makers, crew members) you'll lose a bit of that prestige. Or you're flush with cash and can bribe your way to whatever you want (Astral Shard prices)

Disclaimer, again:
These numbers are for example purposes only. I assume that turbine will set these amounts based on what they determine to be their own best interests if this system or one like it is adopted.

All gold seal amenities: No renown upkeep
Pawlo Mapmaker (L1 Navigator): 50 renown/100 uses (you're helping him make maps by exploring the areas)
QoL amenities (bank, mailbox, etc): 75 renown/100 uses
Lesser Resist Shrines: 100 renown/100 uses
Non-navigator Crewmembers: 100 renown/100 uses
Artleblat (L2 Navigator): 250 renown/100 uses
Trap Device, Stone of Change: 300 renown/100 uses
Standard Resist Shrines: 500 renown/100 uses
Twelve Planescaller: 700 renown/100 uses
Shroud Altars, Epic Altar: 750 renown/100 uses
Greater Resist Shrines: 1000 renown/100 uses
Xathrizopkrsis (L3 Navigator): 500 renown/100 uses +50% increase in renown upkeep from other crew except House J healer (ZOMG they fly around with a Mindflayer, What's up with that?! Creeps me the math out!)

New crew member, Gold Seal only: Orevale and Walbar Shipwright -- These master airship mechanics can be hired to help maintain your guild's airship, but be warned, they don't work cheaply! (Price: 400 Astral Shards, standard gold-seal amenity duration)

Then we uncouple all of the ships and all of the amenities from guild level, and just let guilds pick and choose what they want. If they want a big ship with all of the buffs and amenities, they have to earn more renown to keep it than a more humble guild that gets by with a small ship and a select few amenities. And anyone can throw money at Turbine to get whatever they want.

[Kaisoni]

When you say "barely a reason" this means a reason exists.

Please remove from your equation the ability for more active members to decrease the work they have to do by eliminating the casual players that can't play as often.

Instead of dividing guild renown gained by players by half the active members, find some way to not factor any active members in the equation. (Guild level, straight percentage, total renown gained) This is the only way the "barely a reason" will turn into "there is absolutely NO reason" to kick someone.

Renown gained is divided by the amount of players that have been on in the last 24 hours.
This way the people who only log on once a week, or once a month won't drag the rest of the guild down anywhere near as much.
You could even make it more specific that it only counts the people that have been on in the last 24 hours, and entered a quest. But I imagine that would be a pain for the game to keep track of.

[Hendrik]

I think guilds do need to be active of course. Since we started tracking guilds per Hendrick's wishes my guild has the highest renown earned per member of the 3 guilds even after factoring in the renown bonus. So it appears I don't need any advice about making my guild more active. My guild also has the highest percentage of renown taken away by decay even though EW is 9 levels higher.

Thank you for working the numbers. But just these three Guilds are hardly a decent sample size, but it does provide information and some is still missing.

One thing you have not taken into consideration is that out of my 79 accounts, they are not all online at once or every day. On average, I will only have 20 online on a weekend, less on a weekday - say 10-15. Now re-run your numbers with that information; 10, 15, and 20. You will now see what I see.

[Hendrik]

You will not plateau based on your recent progress.
My reasons for wanting to push the decay multiplier to 10 have to do with the high # of small guilds I see stuck below level 55. It would allow them to upgrade to the level 55 ship.

Rallying the troops is not really necessary since there is no problem with what they are doing. We do not have a problem with renown earning at the moment. Decay is a problem but we are currently @ a net positive.

Any progress since Friday to Sunday cannot be counted, at least ours. We were so close to making level, I rallied the troops each day to make progress. We made a serious effort to make the gains we did by being overly active in our case - more then we have been in a very long time, we had close to 25-30 online at peak times and played much longer then we normally do. The renown bonus was a gift from the gods for us.

Drop it to 10 those other guilds your so worried about, the ones oddly not present here, would advance. Your's to. But every Guild larger then your would progress further. Since your not for that being as rewards are tied to in-game levels, then what?

I do not agree they should be able to progress further since the levels are tied to in-game rewards.

[slarden]

Thank you for working the numbers. But just these three Guilds are hardly a decent sample size, but it does provide information and some is still missing.

One thing you have not taken into consideration is that out of my 79 accounts, they are not all online at once or every day. On average, I will only have 20 online on a weekend, less on a weekday - say 10-15. Now re-run your numbers with that information; 10, 15, and 20. You will now see what I see.

The only meaningful and measurable # is active accounts. There is no basis to conclude there is any correlation between guild size and activity level. The # of people in my guild can be as low as 0 at times during the week.

The only reasonable thing to do is conclude that our activity level is about the same, especially since the renown/player (after removing guild bonus) is almost identical with my guild earning slightly more at the moment. If anything proves that activity is roughly the same, this # would do so.

I would accept that Bathory Hordes members would earn renown slower because they tend to recruit new players. I don't believe your guild is much different than then any of the other small/medium/large mature high level guilds. You are going to ultimately end up recruiting mostly vets with a history of playing regularly. Like my guild you will have people that play less over time due to other real life things taking the place of DDO.

[Hendrik]

The only reasonable thing to do is conclude that our activity level is about the same, especially since the renown/player (after removing guild bonus) is almost identical with my guild earning slightly more at the moment. If anything proves that activity is roughly the same, this # would do so.

If my 79 accounts are just as active as your 9 accounts, and you are earning more renown/player, then one must also conclude that the system is working as intended.


Continue to take advice given or seek it out and you will continue to advance.

If you have zero members online during the week, a change to decay will not help that. Only having members online will. There is no way for you to beat decay unless you actually have people online earning renown, can you? You can also fix that by increasing your membership.

[slarden]

Any progress since Friday to Sunday cannot be counted, at least ours. We were so close to making level, I rallied the troops each day to make progress. We made a serious effort to make the gains we did by being overly active in our case - more then we have been in a very long time, we had close to 25-30 online at peak times and played much longer then we normally do. The renown bonus was a gift from the gods for us.

Drop it to 10 those other guilds your so worried about, the ones oddly not present here, would advance. Your's to. But every Guild larger then your would progress further. Since your not for that being as rewards are tied to in-game levels, then what?

I am not worried about larger guild progressing further/faster since almost all large guild will get to 100 under the new system. I am interested in seeing small guilds be able to move forward and progress a little more even if it's not as much as your guild or other large guilds can progress.

Any large guild that was level 80 prior to the change will be able to get to level 100 under the system - even with the minimum 51 members to be large. If your guild was at level 76 or above before this change, you would be able to reach level 100 under the new system with 79 members. Any 100 member guild that was at level 70 or above prior to the change can reach 100. The math is very straight forward and I will be happy to show it upon request. That is why the developer asked if letting large guilds get to 100 and stay there was a problem worth fixing earlier in this thread.

[slarden]

If my 79 accounts are just as active as your 9 accounts, and you are earning more renown/player, then one must also conclude that the system is working as intended.


Continue to take advice given or seek it out and you will continue to advance.

If you have zero members online during the week, a change to decay will not help that. Only having members online will. There is no way for you to beat decay unless you actually have people online earning renown, can you? You can also fix that by increasing your membership.

renown/member was about equal for our guilds so far. So activity is not a problem for my guild any more than it is a problem for your guild. We have 0 on at times I said. People have to do things such as eat, sleep, shower. I am not sure what you expect of my guild but there is no problem with activity levels. Remember my guild is more active on a per/person basis than your guild at the moment - albeit very slightly.

We rarely encounter unguilded players and when we do they are often unguilded by choice. Some have a specific thing they are looking for in a guild that we don't have. "increasing" membership is really not something we can even do without forcing it. I see little benefit in forcing guilds to grow artifically rather than letting growth occur naturally. You are rather selective with your membership according to your own guild page. I will never recruit someone from another guild just to increase our guild level. It's hurting their other guild and I can group with them outside the guild mechanism just as I do now.

Your advice, while appreciated, is really not helpful. I don't want to suck the fun out of this game for the people in the guild by suggesting we focus on renown or recruiting. People are paying to play this game after all. The best way to absolutely kill our guild is to do what you suggest. That is turning this game into a job - which is something I will never do to the people in the guild.

The earning side is working fine, however the "tax" side is problematic as people in my guild have renown taken away from them at a much higher rate.

[Chaos000]

Renown gained is divided by the amount of players that have been on in the last 24 hours.
This way the people who only log on once a week, or once a month won't drag the rest of the guild down anywhere near as much.

Had this been implemented (counting only players that have been on since the last decay hit) under the old system we wouldn't have as big of an issue.

If it was amended that renown gain is divided by the amount of players that have earned renown in the last 24 hours it would be preferable.