Guild Renown Changes

[Arnez]

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

Hmmm. I did have a long explanation summarizing the last 127 pages, but realized it would fall on deaf (large) ears.

My question is still valid. Why is it such a concern what my 4 account guild can reach and own? Why does perceived "fairness" come into play?
If we can earn it- WHY try to block it? Or slow us down? Or slow ANYONE down for that matter?

Someone earlier said- Simple is Best. Here's simple: Remove Renown Decay. Done.

Honestly, not sure what the problem is- it's not like we smaller guilds want those monstrosities of mazes you call large ships- I don't want to spend 10 minutes getting buffs.

[Hendrik]

Hmmm. I did have a long explanation summarizing the last 127 pages, but realized it would fall on deaf (large) ears.

My question is still valid. Why is it such a concern what my 4 account guild can reach and own? Why does perceived "fairness" come into play?
If we can earn it- WHY try to block it? Or slow us down? Or slow ANYONE down for that matter?

Someone earlier said- Simple is Best. Here's simple: Remove Renown Decay. Done.

Honestly, not sure what the problem is- it's not like we smaller guilds want those monstrosities of mazes you call large ships- I don't want to spend 10 minutes getting buffs.

Your anger is (largly) misplaced. See, I can do that too!



Nobody here wants to slow you down. Nobody here wants to block you from what your guild has rightly earned.

What people are doing here, most at least, are tossing out ideas on how to tweak the system, you would see that if you did more then skim one of the 127 pages.

Decay is here to stay and that is why most of us are tossing out ideas instead of repeating the same idea over and over.

[smatt]

Hmmm. I did have a long explanation summarizing the last 127 pages, but realized it would fall on deaf (large) ears.

My question is still valid. Why is it such a concern what my 4 account guild can reach and own? Why does perceived "fairness" come into play?
If we can earn it- WHY try to block it? Or slow us down? Or slow ANYONE down for that matter?

Someone earlier said- Simple is Best. Here's simple: Remove Renown Decay. Done.

Honestly, not sure what the problem is- it's not like we smaller guilds want those monstrosities of mazes you call large ships- I don't want to spend 10 minutes getting buffs.

Remember, you're only speaking for yourslef and perhaps your guildmates.....

And as Hendrik said... I don't see decay being removed from a realistic standpoint. And too be honest, I don't it should be removed. So IMO ideas need to take that into consideration.... Where all your anger is coming form I have no idea...

[Arnez]

Ok.ok... Anger fading... Hulk calming down.
I do check up on this discussion every now and then, and probably due to coincidence- it's always amongst the pages that someone suggests removing ships and putting in a system that is unrealistic for a (even a 10 account) guild to handle.
I think of the amount of loot we've passed up to get that Legendary Victory and the points we've spent getting Guild Renown potions. Part of that anger is probably misplaced - because of my pressuring (our small guild) to spend TP on potions.
Our ship is very personal to us- Our guild is small by choice (Not because we don't want to make friends- we have & do). It's family based so my kids can have a set rule of "Party with Guildies only". Other times my wife & Bro-In Law & Father-In-Law go with larger groups.
So carry on- now that we have our level 55 ship, we have no desire to go higher- It was just an alarmist reaction to that one post suggesting a daily upkeep or lose the ship we already earned/paid for.

[Nestroy]

Remember, you're only speaking for yourslef and perhaps your guildmates.....

And as Hendrik said... I don't see decay being removed from a realistic standpoint. And too be honest, I don't it should be removed. So IMO ideas need to take that into consideration.... Where all your anger is coming form I have no idea...

If you love the renown decay so much, why not return to the old system (pre U14)? Ah, I see, this would hurt big guilds and they again would have to boot players and casuals... *blah, blah, blah* We all know the score by now. Smatt and Hendik, are you sometimes listening to yourselfs?

Summarized, of what you try to argue in here: If it benefits large guilds, it´s OK. If it would benefit small guilds as well (e.g. doing away with decay completely) it is a bad idea.

So shortest: Large Guilds Good, Small Guilds Bad.

Just plain think of this for a second: There is more out in DDO than just a bunch of very active large guilds. And the world is round, not flat and one-dimensional!

[smatt]

If you love the renown decay so much, why not return to the old system (pre U14)? Ah, I see, this would hurt big guilds and they again would have to boot players and casuals... *blah, blah, blah* We all know the score by now. Smatt and Hendik, are you sometimes listening to yourselfs?

Summarized, of what you try to argue in here: If it benefits large guilds, it´s OK. If it would benefit small guilds as well (e.g. doing away with decay completely) it is a bad idea.

So shortest: Large Guilds Good, Small Guilds Bad.

Just plain think of this for a second: There is more out in DDO than just a bunch of very active large guilds. And the world is round, not flat and one-dimensional!

wow.... You have no idea what getting no FREE renown, and being hit for 130k renown a day is like do you?

I can't even bother to reply to your posts...... They're just not part of any kind of logical converasation.

Your'e only going to be happy if they just GIVE you everything.

[Chaos000]

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.

I dunno, compare a guild of 5 with a guild of 2 +3 placeholder accounts (one person logging in once a month on the 3 accounts)

In terms of percentage of renown taken away from each guild, regardless of whether or not the placeholder accounts earn any renown, it is exactly the same.

Same scenario but the guild of 2 adds an additional +1 placeholder account. Now the system is unfair to the guild of 5 as the percentage of renown taken away from them is less than the guild of 2 is inflated to a guild of 6.

The thing is, when you divide total renown decay by the sum total of all accounts regardless of their level of activity, you can draw false conclusions such as the assumption that all accounts designated as "active" gains renown and therefore smaller guilds are justified in the complaint of X times the number of decay of an overtly inflated larger guild.

If a guild of 24 adds 35 accounts composed of casual players and bank toons, which averages out to 5 of the 35 actually gaining any renown on any given night which boosts the number of 2-3 of the existing 24 that logs in on any given night... is it fair to say that this large guild of 59 has less work than a guild of 24 that averages 7-8 on any given night? If the guild of 24 gains 1 member, is advancement that much easier for the rest of the guild if the added member ends up being a bank toon? Dividing by the sum total of accounts will never be an accurate way to assess how easy it is for a guild of any size to maintain a level of activity.

Yes you can argue about "guild renown gain potential" but there are variables showing why potential measured in this manner simply does not work and therefore the theoretical model proving the disparity is unrealistic.

[smatt]

Ok.ok... Anger fading... Hulk calming down.
I do check up on this discussion every now and then, and probably due to coincidence- it's always amongst the pages that someone suggests removing ships and putting in a system that is unrealistic for a (even a 10 account) guild to handle.
I think of the amount of loot we've passed up to get that Legendary Victory and the points we've spent getting Guild Renown potions. Part of that anger is probably misplaced - because of my pressuring (our small guild) to spend TP on potions.
Our ship is very personal to us- Our guild is small by choice (Not because we don't want to make friends- we have & do). It's family based so my kids can have a set rule of "Party with Guildies only". Other times my wife & Bro-In Law & Father-In-Law go with larger groups.
So carry on- now that we have our level 55 ship, we have no desire to go higher- It was just an alarmist reaction to that one post suggesting a daily upkeep or lose the ship we already earned/paid for.

Ya, I wouldn't worry about that particular idea.... It's pretty far removed from reasonable reality of the situation not only from a player persepctive, but from a develpoer perspective as well. At least IMO...... I doubt they will be "taking anything away" when it comes to the guild ships.

[Chaos000]

If you love the renown decay so much, why not return to the old system (pre U14)? Ah, I see, this would hurt big guilds and they again would have to boot players and casuals... *blah, blah, blah* We all know the score by now. Smatt and Hendik, are you sometimes listening to yourselfs?

Summarized, of what you try to argue in here: If it benefits large guilds, it´s OK. If it would benefit small guilds as well (e.g. doing away with decay completely) it is a bad idea.

So shortest: Large Guilds Good, Small Guilds Bad.

Assuming that the old system of decay/account did not apply more decay than renown earned for each account for the more active accounts to make up...

Example*:
Player A: personal decay = 1,500, earned renown = 500, decay applied for account = -500, renown gain = 0
Player B: personal decay = 1,500, earned renown = 3,000, decay applied for account = -1,500, renown gain = 1,500

*Players A & B same guild

Then I am totally on board with going back to the old system of decay per account. I would even be ok with players that do not meet their personal decay to retain 10% of their total renown gained (meaning a truly inactive but active account earning 0 gets to retain 10% of that 0) so that at least they are still contributing.

[Hendrik]

wow.... You have no idea what getting no FREE renown, and being hit for 130k renown a day is like do you?

I can't even bother to reply to your posts...... They're just not part of any kind of logical converasation.

Your'e only going to be happy if they just GIVE you everything.

Ignore the best solution - just like he is with the numerous suggestions we both have made on decay in honest attempts to help out all guilds.

Cencept of debate is lost on some even when both sides have strong views.

[Artos_Fabril]

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?

If your guild earns enough renown under the current system to retain level 55 from day to day, you would be earning enough renown under the system I proposed to maintain the level 55 ship. Furthermore, if another guild with the same habits and play style you have were form tomorrow, or for some unforeseen reason you had to reform your guild, they (or you) would only have to bank one day's renown to get back to the same level 55 ship, and would never lose it as long as their (your) rate of renown gain was sufficient to maintain level 55 under the current system.

If your concern is just that it took you so long and people coming to the system now would have it so much easier, well... That's a whole separate issue.

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.

Gremmlynn, however, raises some legitimate points.

To the first: This system would reduce, if not eliminate, the barrier to entry for new guilds. With no slow grinding-upwards procedure to unlock ships/buffs people who are sufficiently dissatisfied with the GL's decision can form their own guild, and gain virtually instant access to whatever buffs their renown gain can support. And with no incentive other than seeing a bigger number next to your name to hoard renown, it may well be in the guild's best interests to keep shrines running. The effect of shrines is to make it easier to run quests, and quests are where your players get renown, so your guild gets more renown if players run more quests because they are able to complete more easily or faster.

To the second: If players don't want to bother with ship buffs, I see no reason they should have to. It doesn't seem to me like this would be any more of a hassle to keep up with than what we have now.

To the third: My initial reaction is "If you have a player in your guild griefing you, kick them the heck out. Turbine doesn't need to change the way buffs work to fix an issue players can fix that easily."

But that raises a separate issue that I didn't consider initially, and that is the concern that a per-use cost would discourage guilds from allowing other people onto their ships.
On the one hand, if the ship buffs are supposed to be a perk of membership in an active guild, then there isn't really a problem with that.
On the other hand, if being able to offer up a small kindness to other people you group with is part of the perks of being in a high-level guild now, then this could be seen as taking that away.
It is also potentially damaging to the community and could be a giant source of butthurt drama.
So I'm more than fine with getting rid of this, it was solely an attempt to appease the demands of small guilds that there be some sort of per-account renown cost because it's unfair that a group of 100 people trying to bail out a boat has to do so much less work per person than a group of 10 people trying to do the same thing.

But if there weren't some sort of per-member cost to guild benefits, would the small guilds start up another whinestorm about about unfairness and iniquity?

Of course, I'm not wedded to this proposal, I just find it more satisfying to keep suggesting possible solutions than to whine about the situation or argue with people who can't describe a system that they feel would meet their own demands.

[smatt]

I dunno, compare a guild of 5 with a guild of 2 +3 placeholder accounts (one person logging in once a month on the 3 accounts)

In terms of percentage of renown taken away from each guild, regardless of whether or not the placeholder accounts earn any renown, it is exactly the same.

Same scenario but the guild of 2 adds an additional +1 placeholder account. Now the system is unfair to the guild of 5 as the percentage of renown taken away from them is less than the guild of 2 is inflated to a guild of 6.

The thing is, when you divide total renown decay by the sum total of all accounts regardless of their level of activity, you can draw false conclusions such as the assumption that all accounts designated as "active" gains renown and therefore smaller guilds are justified in the complaint of X times the number of decay of an overtly inflated larger guild.

If a guild of 24 adds 35 accounts composed of casual players and bank toons, which averages out to 5 of the 35 actually gaining any renown on any given night which boosts the number of 2-3 of the existing 24 that logs in on any given night... is it fair to say that this large guild of 59 has less work than a guild of 24 that averages 7-8 on any given night? If the guild of 24 gains 1 member, is advancement that much easier for the rest of the guild if the added member ends up being a bank toon? Dividing by the sum total of accounts will never be an accurate way to assess how easy it is for a guild of any size to maintain a level of activity.

Yes you can argue about "guild renown gain potential" but there are variables showing why potential measured in this manner simply does not work and therefore the theoretical model proving the disparity is unrealistic.

I still find, wehn reading many people posts that there is confusion between "accounts" and members. And sicne of course MyDDO stats are so stupidly screwed up and inaccurae.. Well you know.. For instance it shows my guild To Hit Armro Class Zero on Ghallanda, as lvl 85 (which we hit this morning after almost 2 years of being over level 80), with 638 members (characters) shown on the leaderboard, but with 1830 on the detail page.. Now than, we have 65 active accounts right now with another 35 inactive, something that MYDDO doesn't show at all . We recently have started removing characters that haven't logged in in over 3 months, if they didn';t notify us on our website. Those players know where to find us and can comeback IF they do comeback to the game.

But you see there is no way to tell how many account the guild actually has, just a wild aproximation of characters. How coudl you possibly know if my guild has 30 accounts or 100? That's why I take any stats taken from MYDDO and any site that uses such information to be complete and total junk. Those stas totalyl cloud the issue in any discussion.

[Hendrik]

For instance it shows my guild To Hit Armro Class Zero on Ghallanda, as lvl 85 (which we hit this morning after almost 2 years of being over level 80),

Another interesting point smatt.

It took us the same amount of time to reach our 85 benchmark. We were stuck at the 80-81 bounce for 2 years and just hit 85 on Sunday morning. L85 is all we ever wanted to hit since airships launched.

[Gremmlynn]

I dunno, compare a guild of 5 with a guild of 2 +3 placeholder accounts (one person logging in once a month on the 3 accounts)

In terms of percentage of renown taken away from each guild, regardless of whether or not the placeholder accounts earn any renown, it is exactly the same.

Same scenario but the guild of 2 adds an additional +1 placeholder account. Now the system is unfair to the guild of 5 as the percentage of renown taken away from them is less than the guild of 2 is inflated to a guild of 6.

The thing is, when you divide total renown decay by the sum total of all accounts regardless of their level of activity, you can draw false conclusions such as the assumption that all accounts designated as "active" gains renown and therefore smaller guilds are justified in the complaint of X times the number of decay of an overtly inflated larger guild.

If a guild of 24 adds 35 accounts composed of casual players and bank toons, which averages out to 5 of the 35 actually gaining any renown on any given night which boosts the number of 2-3 of the existing 24 that logs in on any given night... is it fair to say that this large guild of 59 has less work than a guild of 24 that averages 7-8 on any given night? If the guild of 24 gains 1 member, is advancement that much easier for the rest of the guild if the added member ends up being a bank toon? Dividing by the sum total of accounts will never be an accurate way to assess how easy it is for a guild of any size to maintain a level of activity.

Yes you can argue about "guild renown gain potential" but there are variables showing why potential measured in this manner simply does not work and therefore the theoretical model proving the disparity is unrealistic.

You miss the point. It would seem from the way the mechanics are set up that, regardless of what they say, Turbine want's to discourage one player or even 1-5 player guilds. If they set things up so that the most bang for the buck comes from having 1 players worth of decay with a maximum bonus due to placeholders, I would read that as their promoting everyone to go it alone.

[Gremmlynn]

To the third: My initial reaction is "If you have a player in your guild griefing you, kick them the heck out. Turbine doesn't need to change the way buffs work to fix an issue players can fix that easily."

Really? Because it's so easy to keep track of who is clicking shrines 3 times every time they buff just to be a hard ass. Or even fix the oft seen freshen up our buffs habit that some seem to think is a good idea between every 5 min quest?

I'm willing to bet that currently more players refresh buffs before entering a new quest than those that let them run their course and finish without them. So those 1 hour buffs suddenly start being 10-40 minute buffs depending on how often a player feels they need to be freshened up (or how often they die) and the consumption rate of renown goes up (or those who die a lot simply find themselves without a guild).

[Chaos000]

You miss the point. It would seem from the way the mechanics are set up that, regardless of what they say, Turbine want's to discourage one player or even 1-5 player guilds. If they set things up so that the most bang for the buck comes from having 1 players worth of decay with a maximum bonus due to placeholders, I would read that as their promoting everyone to go it alone.

I agree with that.

The issue with discouraging one player guilds by making it impossible, even with placeholders for the maximum bonus, to reach upper tiers... is that in a small guild with only one active player and the rest casual (so casual it is as if they don't exist) will stagnate and be unable to progress. I think slarden made a good point in that stagnation leads to frustration and this will ultimately lead to leaving the game.

Due to the shear amount of effort one player must make to progress that is disincentive enough, however I believe by making it possible, it will help the game retain players that play exclusively in smaller guilds as a point of choice.

They should NOT make it the most bang for the buck, but at the same time they don't have to make it so prohibitive to discourage it entirely.

[smatt]

I agree with that.

The issue with discouraging one player guilds by making it impossible, even with placeholders for the maximum bonus, to reach upper tiers... is that in a small guild with only one active player and the rest casual (so casual it is as if they don't exist) will stagnate and be unable to progress. I think slarden made a good point in that stagnation leads to frustration and this will ultimately lead to leaving the game.

Due to the shear amount of effort one player must make to progress that is disincentive enough, however I believe by making it possible, it will help the game retain players that play exclusively in smaller guilds as a point of choice.

They should NOT make it the most bang for the buck, but at the same time they don't have to make it so prohibitive to discourage it entirely.

This is exactly why I like a "Active logged into the game" based decay. This allows guilds with casual players to advance at least. Not perfect but still better...

[Artos_Fabril]

Really? Because it's so easy to keep track of who is clicking shrines 3 times every time they buff just to be a hard ass. Or even fix the oft seen freshen up our buffs habit that some seem to think is a good idea between every 5 min quest?

I'm willing to bet that currently more players refresh buffs before entering a new quest than those that let them run their course and finish without them. So those 1 hour buffs suddenly start being 10-40 minute buffs depending on how often a player feels they need to be freshened up (or how often they die) and the consumption rate of renown goes up (or those who die a lot simply find themselves without a guild).

I'm curious whether you continued reading that post, where I acknowledged additional issues with the idea of per use decay. I don't gain anything by keeping it, but it seems that (the people who claim to be speaking for) small guilds oppose any system without a per-player cost. That seemed to be the best way to do it, since it is self-correcting for both low-activity players, and those who don't use the advantages their renown earns. And included a bypass mechanism to line Turbine's pockets.

I don't know if anyone else cares, but I'd love to see a counter proposal.

[Artos_Fabril]

This is exactly why I like a "Active logged into the game" based decay. This allows guilds with casual players to advance at least. Not perfect but still better...

Smatt, what if instead of "active logged into game" we were to use a measure of activity that's already tracked as a part of the system, and would allow the players who log in to say "hi" without running anything to remain uncounted? Namely, a person is flagged as inactive when they haven't earned any renown within the preceding decay period. With the inactivity flag cleared as soon as they earn a point of renown?

Bonus: players don't get a decay hit when servers are brought down or crash multiple times in a day.

[Gremmlynn]

I agree with that.

The issue with discouraging one player guilds by making it impossible, even with placeholders for the maximum bonus, to reach upper tiers... is that in a small guild with only one active player and the rest casual (so casual it is as if they don't exist) will stagnate and be unable to progress. I think slarden made a good point in that stagnation leads to frustration and this will ultimately lead to leaving the game.

Due to the shear amount of effort one player must make to progress that is disincentive enough, however I believe by making it possible, it will help the game retain players that play exclusively in smaller guilds as a point of choice.

They should NOT make it the most bang for the buck, but at the same time they don't have to make it so prohibitive to discourage it entirely.

Impossible? No. Very difficult? Sure. Really, I can understand why this would be frustrating for players trying to carry their fellows to the promised land, but take away that one active player and think about how frustrating it must be for that small guild of all casual players (so casual it is as if they don't exist). Where should the line be drawn?