Guild Renown Changes

[Blue100000005]

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.

This would hurt small guilds even more than the current system. That would only accomplish completely destroying small guilds and creating super ones. What small guild can afford to pay renown daily for every ship buff?


Again i say, the ship buffs are the issue, why not remove them.

[Artos_Fabril]

This would hurt small guilds even more than the current system. That would only accomplish completely destroying small guilds and creating super ones. What small guild can afford to pay renown daily for every ship buff?


Again i say, the ship buffs are the issue, why not remove them.

All guilds would have equal access to all ships and buffs, depending only on their ability to earn the associated renown. The buffs would require less renown from small guilds, since their fewer members would require fewer uses per day.

It might also discourage people from wasting everyone else's time with buffs they really don't need.

[Blue100000005]

All guilds would have equal access to all ships and buffs, depending only on their ability to earn the associated renown. The buffs would require less renown from small guilds, since their fewer members would require fewer uses per day.

It might also discourage people from wasting everyone else's time with buffs they really don't need.

I can easily see that becoming such a huge issue that no one will accept it. Why would anyone buff then? You never know when you may get an unlucky streak and die, then you effectively wasted a full use of most ship buffs?

I think that is far more problematic of a solution than just leaving the renown as it it. That is also saying, small guilds get left out because they dont NEED ALL the buffs. FYI no one NEEDS any buffs.

[Hendrik]

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.

Aren't you already by being so worried about your Guild not advancing as fast as others and so worried about every other Guild below you on every other server?

How fun is it for you to solo zerg content to gain renown so your other Guild members don't have to?

Keep taking the advice given, or not, and you will continue to advance. Stop being so overly worried about Guild level and worry about beating quests with your guildmates.

No matter what change comes, if any, you will still need your Guildmates online and playing content to get past ANY decay. Right? If you are the only one online for a couple days, all that decay is now on your shoulders to overcome. With a casual guild membership like you have, you will plateau at a far lower level. Changing the system to suit your casual gameplay is not the full answer. While if there is a change to do that, yes, it will help you, but on the other hand, every other guild that is not casual will gain a huge benefit. Are you ready to accept that while you may gain a very small benefit, everyone else will gain a huge one? You already don't with what we have now.

Keep making those gains and get to L85 if you can then you don't have to worry about renown anymore. But when you get close, you might have to up your game to get there at the end.

[slarden]

Aren't you already by being so worried about your Guild not advancing as fast as others and so worried about every other Guild below you on every other server?

How fun is it for you to solo zerg content to gain renown so your other Guild members don't have to?

Keep taking the advice given, or not, and you will continue to advance. Stop being so overly worried about Guild level and worry about beating quests with your guildmates.

No matter what change comes, if any, you will still need your Guildmates online and playing content to get past ANY decay. Right? If you are the only one online for a couple days, all that decay is now on your shoulders to overcome. With a casual guild membership like you have, you will plateau at a far lower level. Changing the system to suit your casual gameplay is not the full answer. While if there is a change to do that, yes, it will help you, but on the other hand, every other guild that is not casual will gain a huge benefit. Are you ready to accept that while you may gain a very small benefit, everyone else will gain a huge one? You already don't with what we have now.

Keep making those gains and get to L85 if you can then you don't have to worry about renown anymore. But when you get close, you might have to up your game to get there at the end.

I have to laugh because you keep bringing up the same argument even though we now have actual #s to compare our guilds that prove actiivty and being online is not an issue for my guild.

It's fine if I voluntarily focus on guild renown, but it's not ok if I put any kind of pressure on others to change their game play to optimize renown. I find it dubious to recruit from other guilds to optimize my guild level and almost all players are already in a guild at the levels I run.

As I mentioned, your advice really doesn't help at all. You keep emphasizing I need to have people online which is rather ridiculous considering my guild is earning more per member than your guild (after removing guild bonus effect). So being online and renown generation is not a problem for our guild. Decay is the only thing out of balance between your guild and my guild.

Your guild and most large guilds already have no problem marching to 100. I don't see why you have a problem letting a level 60 small guild stuck at 60 advance a few levels by getting a decay reduction of 50% with a fixed account multiplier of 10 instead of 20.

Your decay was reduced by over 75% which is the only reason your guild can now march to 100. Why is it necessary for you and a few others to see small guilds stuck at levels far below 85 when you can march to 100?

Again, our guilds have the same average activity level. The only reason you are able to march to 100 with cushion and other small guilds with the same average activity level can't is because of the difference in decay. I don't think letting large guilds get to 100 is a problem worth fixing, but I think the imbalance between small and large guilds should definitely be fixed by lessening the decay burden on small guilds.

[smatt]

Aren't you already by being so worried about your Guild not advancing as fast as others and so worried about every other Guild below you on every other server?

How fun is it for you to solo zerg content to gain renown so your other Guild members don't have to?

Keep taking the advice given, or not, and you will continue to advance. Stop being so overly worried about Guild level and worry about beating quests with your guildmates.

No matter what change comes, if any, you will still need your Guildmates online and playing content to get past ANY decay. Right? If you are the only one online for a couple days, all that decay is now on your shoulders to overcome. With a casual guild membership like you have, you will plateau at a far lower level. Changing the system to suit your casual gameplay is not the full answer. While if there is a change to do that, yes, it will help you, but on the other hand, every other guild that is not casual will gain a huge benefit. Are you ready to accept that while you may gain a very small benefit, everyone else will gain a huge one? You already don't with what we have now.

Keep making those gains and get to L85 if you can then you don't have to worry about renown anymore. But when you get close, you might have to up your game to get there at the end.

I applaud your patience on this.....

I think perhaps solving the issue of decay and what is fair and not fair to guilds of all sizes, levels, playstylesneeds to be based on something different than what is current. I certainly do believe that the core driving force of any system should be activety. The more active a guild, the more benefit they should receive or possibly have access to. That being said, any system that focuses purely on guild size, with a base level set as we have now, it bound to favor one guild size over another. The old system was terrible as we all know, and yet the new system still needs tweaks.

I think the answer lies in the area of basing decay on something such as total activety of a guild, some timer that the game already uses for lgocial reasons. I wonder if the game tracks the amount of time a particular account is logged in on a daily basis. IE: ACcount XXX was logged in to the live game for 3 hours 23 minutes (all characters inclusive) on example day. I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a forumla to base decay off a guilds total logged in hours on a daily basis?

[smatt]

I have to laugh because you keep bringing up the same argument even though we now have actual #s to compare our guilds that prove actiivty and being online is not an issue for my guild.


Your guild and most large guilds already have no problem marching to 100. I don't see why you have a problem letting a level 60 small guild stuck at 60 advance a few levels by getting a decay reduction of 50% with a fixed account multiplier of 10 instead of 20.

Simply changing the base decay rate, while leaving the FREE bonuses intact as is, simply moves the bar to some other set of people, encourages a particular ideal size of a guild etc etc.

My guild hit 85 last night... You know how? We all encouraged each other to drive to that goal.... It happens...

[Chaos000]

No matter what change comes, if any, you will still need your Guildmates online and playing content to get past ANY decay. Right? If you are the only one online for a couple days, all that decay is now on your shoulders to overcome. With a casual guild membership like you have, you will plateau at a far lower level. Changing the system to suit your casual gameplay is not the full answer. While if there is a change to do that, yes, it will help you, but on the other hand, every other guild that is not casual will gain a huge benefit. Are you ready to accept that while you may gain a very small benefit, everyone else will gain a huge one? You already don't with what we have now.

I think the desired change would be sufficient bonuses to allow for even a single highly active player in a guild full of casuals to be able to get past decay and not plateau until level 85.

For players that multi box, one or two piking f2p accounts parked at entrance then used to loot chests to get end reward, it is a manner in which players artificially multiply their renown gaining potential without having to coordinate efforts with another human being. I would hope that there will be a measure in the future for players to be able to increase dungeon scaling for higher renown gains. +1 artificial increase = x2 multiplier on looted renown?

Current system requires a couple highly active players in any guild to be able to get past decay to guild cap. In the absence of numbers, a very small number of highly active players cannot aspire to even reach 85

The argument that keeps reoccurring is that it's not "fair" that a higher percentage of renown is being taken away from smaller guilds in comparison to bigger guilds. When all said and done, non significant renown gaining accounts should (have their renown gain added to the guild total but) not have any renown being taken away.

Placeholder f2p accounts used to boost guild numbers for higher size bonus, parked bank toons that only get used to store inventory, social players that log in but don't quest, extremely casual players that log in one or two times a month for an hour each session... shouldn't be 1) factored into any decay per account calculations nor 2) become worth booting due to any upcoming changes that assigns bonuses or penalties due to size.

[Chaos000]

I think the answer lies in the area of basing decay on something such as total activity of a guild, some timer that the game already uses for logical reasons. I wonder if the game tracks the amount of time a particular account is logged in on a daily basis. IE: Account XXX was logged in to the live game for 3 hours 23 minutes (all characters inclusive) on example day. I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a formula to base decay off a guilds total logged in hours on a daily basis?

I would find this acceptable.

You will get people coming out of the woodwork complaining why active players meeting or exceeding their renown gain potential are being penalized, while less active players who are not contributing as much are given a free ride... but this would be the only way to truly assess each guild's true activity.

[smatt]

I would find this acceptable.

You will get people coming out of the woodwork complaining why active players meeting or exceeding their renown gain potential are being penalized, while less active players who are not contributing as much are given a free ride... but this would be the only way to truly assess each guild's true activity.

Well, I've always hated the idea of a guild with multiple accounts from 1 player.. IE: The multi-boxers having a marked advatage. That has been used in the past to extensively game the system, which causes Turbine to adjust for that, to the detriment of the majority of the players out there. But really that's just a minor part of the issue. I also don't like the way the small guild bonuses are given out, it's just another way to encourage a specific guild size, and of course another way for people to "game" the sysem.

Finding a way to distribute deacy withiut giving too much advantage or disadvantage is a problem. But I think finding a measure the game already tracks and tieing into that is a big positive from Turbines side. The only downside I see to gauging decay from an actual game time per account basis would be for the people who log in to just stand around and chat, and the guilds that have a lot of those type of players. Maybe a counter on total time in quests? But I think it is far less likely the game has anything tracking that already.

[Hendrik]

Why is it necessary for you and a few others to see small guilds stuck at levels far below 85 when you can march to 100?

Want a laugh, here is one for you.

You won't gain those last few levels you want so much because you don't have the people online to overcome decay.

Drop it to 10, and if you still don't have people online to overcome decay, guess what, you won't advance even then.

Why do you think you should be able to advance like large guilds with many online when you yourself do not have many, if ANY, online?

You want the benefit of guild advancement without having the players online to advance.

You have already said that our activity levels are the same. Stated that you are advancing, even slowly, and your fine with that. Your fine that large guilds advance farther and faster.

This is starting to sound like, again, like you want to raise in levels without adding more members, having members online, change how you play or what you run.

You want those levels that are so important to you, then get your members online and playing content - as you have exerienced, it is that easy. If it wasn't you would not be advancing right now like you are.


And I have been for, and made suggestions, to change decay. All for smaller guilds getting a few extra levels. What I am against is removing activity from the equation and repeating this debate again when you do get those extra levels and start the whole 'this is not fair' argument all over again when you plateau again.

[smatt]

Want a laugh, here is one for you.

You won't gain those last few levels you want so much because you don't have the people online to overcome decay.

Drop it to 10, and if you still don't have people online to overcome decay, guess what, you won't advance even then.

Why do you think you should be able to advance like large guilds with many online when you yourself do not have many, if ANY, online?

You want the benefit of guild advancement without having the players online to advance.

You have already said that our activity levels are the same. Stated that you are advancing, even slowly, and your fine with that. Your fine that large guilds advance farther and faster.

This is starting to sound like, again, like you want to raise in levels without adding more members, having members online, change how you play or what you run.

You want those levels that are so important to you, then get your members online and playing content - as you have exerienced, it is that easy. If it wasn't you would not be advancing right now like you are.

You again show far more patience than any normal and or sane person would

[Gremmlynn]

I can easily see that becoming such a huge issue that no one will accept it. Why would anyone buff then? You never know when you may get an unlucky streak and die, then you effectively wasted a full use of most ship buffs?

I think that is far more problematic of a solution than just leaving the renown as it it. That is also saying, small guilds get left out because they dont NEED ALL the buffs. FYI no one NEEDS any buffs.

Ive seen similar systems in other games. How it tended to work out in most guilds was that the GL removed the cost/buff NPCs outside of guild events. So basically, no buffs placed except on raid night.

It was rather clunky and sure didn't lead to players making a whole lot of effort filling shrines.

EDIT: It also lead to buffs not being over-writable to prevent griefing. So expect buffs to have the same "wait around till they run out to replace" mechanic that guild augment crystals have if something like this were put in place.

[Hendrik]

I applaud your patience on this.....

I think perhaps solving the issue of decay and what is fair and not fair to guilds of all sizes, levels, playstylesneeds to be based on something different than what is current. I certainly do believe that the core driving force of any system should be activety. The more active a guild, the more benefit they should receive or possibly have access to. That being said, any system that focuses purely on guild size, with a base level set as we have now, it bound to favor one guild size over another. The old system was terrible as we all know, and yet the new system still needs tweaks.

I think the answer lies in the area of basing decay on something such as total activety of a guild, some timer that the game already uses for lgocial reasons. I wonder if the game tracks the amount of time a particular account is logged in on a daily basis. IE: ACcount XXX was logged in to the live game for 3 hours 23 minutes (all characters inclusive) on example day. I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a forumla to base decay off a guilds total logged in hours on a daily basis?

Patience is wearing thin....



Interesting idea smatt and that might work.

More online hours, more decay per day. Would really help the casual players out. Powergamers would be hit with more decay, but by very nature of gameplay style, they could prolly overcome it. Maybe set a min/max for it too?

Brainstorm;

Set static account multiplier off size bonus?

Very Small is 10. Small is 15. Medium is 20.

Booting an account does not add to size bonus/static account multiplier.

[Hendrik]

You again show far more patience than any normal and or sane person would

Good medication is key smatt.

[Artos_Fabril]

I can easily see that becoming such a huge issue that no one will accept it. Why would anyone buff then? You never know when you may get an unlucky streak and die, then you effectively wasted a full use of most ship buffs?

I think that is far more problematic of a solution than just leaving the renown as it it. That is also saying, small guilds get left out because they dont NEED ALL the buffs. FYI no one NEEDS any buffs.

I'm not sure which of us is misunderstanding the other, but in case I'm not being sufficiently clear:

Guild "levels" removed (or kept just for show)
DISCLAIMER: All costs given for example only; expect Turbine to run the numbers and determine what costs are in their best interests
All ships and buffs available to all guilds (renown costs proposed for ships approximately equal to minimum decay at the level for the plat-purchased ship of that tier)
Shrines/Crew/Altars given a renown cost in accordance with their utility per n uses (I went with per 100 uses for the sake of simplicity)
-Larger guilds pay less per-member for ships, less active members incur less amenity upkeep (makes system more fair/ evens playing field between very large and very small guilds/ only incurs costs based on usage)
-Smaller guilds pay more renown per player for ships, more active members incur more amenity upkeep (balance for small hyperactive guilds against less active guilds/ only incurs upkeep cost based on usage)
Allows guilds to prioritize advancement (in the form of guild level) or benefit (in the form of amenities)
No renown cost for TP/AS purchased amenities (and TP/AS purchased amenity to remove ship upkeep): Turbine still gets their pound of flesh.

[Gremmlynn]

Placeholder f2p accounts used to boost guild numbers for higher size bonus, parked bank toons that only get used to store inventory, social players that log in but don't quest, extremely casual players that log in one or two times a month for an hour each session... shouldn't be 1) factored into any decay per account calculations nor 2) become worth booting due to any upcoming changes that assigns bonuses or penalties due to size.

I'm going to have to disagree about the placeholders being used to get bigger size bonuses not counting. But that is probably a moot point as I don't see guilds of six ever having more decay than guilds of one.

[smatt]

I'm not sure which of us is misunderstanding the other, but in case I'm not being sufficiently clear:

Guild "levels" removed (or kept just for show)
DISCLAIMER: All costs given for example only; expect Turbine to run the numbers and determine what costs are in their best interests
All ships and buffs available to all guilds (renown costs proposed for ships approximately equal to minimum decay at the level for the plat-purchased ship of that tier)
Shrines/Crew/Altars given a renown cost in accordance with their utility per n uses (I went with per 100 uses for the sake of simplicity)
-Larger guilds pay less per-member for ships, less active members incur less amenity upkeep (makes system more fair/ evens playing field between very large and very small guilds/ only incurs costs based on usage)
-Smaller guilds pay more renown per player for ships, more active members incur more amenity upkeep (balance for small hyperactive guilds against less active guilds/ only incurs upkeep cost based on usage)
Allows guilds to prioritize advancement (in the form of guild level) or benefit (in the form of amenities)
No renown cost for TP/AS purchased amenities (and TP/AS purchased amenity to remove ship upkeep): Turbine still gets their pound of flesh.

I'm sorry Artos, I don't like your ideas here.... It would cause inner-guild strife..... Putting any kind of per use limits on ammenities, wouodl be sure to cause problems between guild members... IE: So an dso is using more than his/her fair share of the uses.. Etc... It's a bunch of overly complicated mechanics.. Simple is much better, as long as it works... But at least you're thinking outside of the box....

[Arnez]

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.

I'm sorry. This is the single dumbest idea I've seen so far.

You large guilds want your level 85 ships- FINE. Get there, keep it. WOoooHooo You guys are bigger. You have more "friends". Have fun with that.

It took us 2 YEARS to earn our Level 55 Ship (4 Very Active Accounts). AND we were OK with that. Why are you guys so Heck Bent on taking that away from us?!?!?!?
WHY- For the Love of Lloth- is the popular opinion (Amongst you seemingly popular and outgoing-types) that WE don't deserve our ship?

[smatt]

I'm sorry. This is the single dumbest idea I've seen so far.

You large guilds want your level 85 ships- FINE. Get there, keep it. WOoooHooo You guys are bigger. You have more "friends". Have fun with that.

It took us 2 YEARS to earn our Level 55 Ship (4 Very Active Accounts). AND we were OK with that. Why are you guys so Heck Bent on taking that away from us?!?!?!?
WHY- For the Love of Lloth- is the popular opinion (Amongst you seemingly popular and outgoing-types) that WE don't deserve our ship?

What is this wand you're waving? Who wants to take your ship? Who said you didn't deserve it?

And woohoo you're smaller... And you're happy... It's a game and that's how it should be...