Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

If we want a system that encourages adding new and casual players I think that should be promoted rather than putting an excessive decay on players in small guilds.

1) Don't count accounts without a character above level 16 towards the activity count.
2) Give a very large bonus for adding new players, but only players that don't have a character above 10 on their account.
3) Base decay solely on accounts that have at least one level 16 character
4) Don't count characters that logged in but didn't actually earn any renown for the guild
5) 100% penalty for booting a player
6) Don't remove any renown for players that leave on good terms. If it's not the guild's fault, why should they be penalized because someone decided to move to a large guild where leveling is so easy.

[smatt]

You keep making this same false assertion that player activity is the problem. You said your guild was stuck in the low 80s prior to the change The reason you were stuck had nothing to do with activity level, it had to do with an amount of decay your guild couldn't overcome with the activity level the players had time for.

If all the accounts in my guild had an activety loevel of say 10 hours a week, we would've advanced even back then. But being a mixed guild, who took in new players based on the type of persont hey are as opposed to any other metric, we have never placed any requirements on members. We accpeted where we capped out at. We didn't try stealing people as you say from other guilds, we didn't boot people from our guild. We ahve actively recruited 1 time for about a month period, otherwise we have only ever taken in people who requested to join.

The only free ride requested was by you. You wish to keep 75% of the renown from people you boot from your guild. You and your guildies continue to get the benefit of the net 75% renown the person involuntarily removed earned. The person booted is getting no benefit for what he/she earned.

We've booted 2 people in total in the 5 years I've been in the guild. You're confused AGAIN....

What we are pointing out is that a small guild and a large guild with the same per player activity can move in different directions. The small guild can be moving backwards even though the large guild is moving forward. Guilds with the same player activity will reach different plateaues. Your large guild will reach level 100 while a small guild with the same activity level will be stuck at a level far below that.

You're guidl wil likely cap at a lower level... The system is workign as intended in that respect. How many times does it have to be said that it was never intended for every guild to reach lvl 100? But I knwo you seem to ignore certain things that dont' fit your pre-conceived notion of how things should be.

I can certainly see why you want the system to work for you, but I don't believe such a system is good for the DDO community. Over time decay becomes very frustrating to people that worked very hard and made sacrifices to build up their small guild - only to watch it stall permanently while other guilds with the same per player activity levels (or lower activity levels) march to 100.

Most people don't care that much about the guild ship system. They just play and take what the game gives them. Tehre's a big difference between just akign thigns as they come and this entitlement thing you have going.... I don't see legions of peopel leaving due to the guild ship system in any case.

I don't think it's working as intended - it was a quick fix. I hope the next fix also comes quickly.

I doubt it is EXACTLY as it should be either.. But I'm not going to say all of that yet again.

[Hendrik]

If anything proves the system is broke your posts do. My guild is actually producing more renown per player than your guild. So what is your conclusion? We must change our actions.

Well that is exactly my point, even though my guild is producing more renown than your guild you say we need to do more

The issue isn't production, my guild is producing just fine. The problem is that we have more of our renown taken away in the form of a decay tax. I will post the #s with a detailed analysis once we complete our first week.

This was a great idea you had. It is demonstrating the problem in a way mere words can't.

Thanks for showing that the system is working for you.

Keep up the gains and you will continue to do just fine.

Your next step is to stop worrying about other Guilds.

[Hendrik]

So when you were stuck at 80-81 why didn't you follow your own advice and just have people play more? I mean you could have advanced if your guild would have played more.

Don't forget that small guilds are still operating under the old system except that things are actually worse due to the more difficult ransack penalty. Our decay/person is very close to what your decay/person was under the old system. That is why you are now able to advance - a decay reduction - not because you are playing more.

Remember, my guild is slightly more active than your guild on a per member basis.

You and Smatt's guild will reach 100 under the new system and I am very happy for both of you. However, small guilds are still stuck at levels much lower than that.

You have not clue about Large Guilds and having to overcome over 100k+ decay a day, so you can just stop with that line.

And you know what, I did. Started Guild events, the same ones I suggested to you. We even went thru the same BS of removing inactives. None of it helped. But we kept the Guild events. The drama around inactives caused more problems. We then gave up on the idea of advancement since we could not after 2 years, we concentrated on the members.

Good, the system is working for you. Keep up the great work. Now stop speaking for other Guilds! Speak for your own. If you want to keep speaking for other guilds, then we will have to listen to other people speaking for you Guild. You won't like what they are saying for your Guild.

[Hendrik]

How is that an advantage over a guild of 80 people earning the renown of 80 and getting decay for 20.

Only of all 80 are online everyday.

Since your 9 accounts are earning more renown then a 80 account Guild, you also are getting the decay of 20.

How can you not be overcoming decay of 20 if you are earning more renown a day then 80 accounts?

Smells fishy.

[Hendrik]

Have they given a logical reason why decay is honestly needed? Perhaps i skimmed over them in the 130+pages thus far.

Yes, back in 2010.


Renown Decay

A guild’s level represent’s their current stature, and that stature is based on their renown. If “renown” is your guild’s “fame,” then your guild is like a famous actor, but in more ways than one! With a successful actor, the level of their fame can decline if they’re removed from the public eye for an extended period of time. The same is true for a guild’s renown – it can fade if the guild is not keeping active around the city thwarting monsters and waging battles of glory. If a guild were able to rise to an impressively high level and then cease to be active, their renown would start to decay as the tales of their heroics faded into memory.

For the first part of a guild’s level progression, decay of a guild’s renown isn’t a concern, but as a guild’s level increases beyond a certain threshold, they start to face additional challenges progressing – and maintaining - their renown and guild level. This mostly pertains to ambitious guilds that attain very high renown; we felt that this would create an exciting dynamic and foster some friendly competition! Who can rise to the top, and stay at the top, of the city’s list of famous guilds?

[Hendrik]

The main problem guilds have always faced is that people who were once active no longer are active due mostly to real life things taking up their time. This is still an issue for small guilds but not because of small guild bonus as some claim. It has to do with the fact that if we can't earn renown fast enough to cover decay, we move backwards under a high decay system.

But you are moving forward now that you have listened to advice.

Speak for your own Guild and not others.

[Chaos000]

Well, if you put in $$$ as a logical reason, we might accurately guess why decay is necessary.

Unless of course there is a complete rework of the system and they find better ways of parting us players from TPs. Then all the sudden decay will vanish magically from one day to the other.

I'm also ok with 0 decay for the day at the cost of X turbine points (astral diamonds?) per day. Overpayments can be banked for the future.

Or... increase the value (x20?) received by renown potions. I'm sure if lesser renown potions carried a value of +400% and greater renown potions carried a value of +1,500% it would make it that much more worth buying.

[smatt]

Well, if you put in $$$ as a logical reason, we might accurately guess why decay is necessary.

Unless of course there is a complete rework of the system and they find better ways of parting us players from TPs. Then all the sudden decay will vanish magically from one day to the other.

Strange how a BUSINESS wants to make moeny isn't it?

[Nestroy]

Strange how a BUSINESS wants to make moeny isn't it?

Strange the renown system is young Padawan.

[slarden]

You have not clue about Large Guilds and having to overcome over 100k+ decay a day, so you can just stop with that line.

And you know what, I did. Started Guild events, the same ones I suggested to you. We even went thru the same BS of removing inactives. None of it helped. But we kept the Guild events. The drama around inactives caused more problems. We then gave up on the idea of advancement since we could not after 2 years, we concentrated on the members.

Thank you for acknowledging two points:

1) high decay/player is difficult to overcome. We are still in this situation you used to be in and yes it is difficult for most small guilds.

2) For acknowledging that the advice you you are giving doesn't really work when a guild is struggling with high decay. I already knew this was the case which is why I dismissed it. Our guild is doing what the people in our guild want it to do. Just as yours did.

We would like to get a reduction in decay just as your guild received.

[slarden]

But you are moving forward now that you have listened to advice.

Speak for your own Guild and not others.

You are the person that insisted on getting more details on guilds. We are now doing it and will continue to do so.

I have and will continue to speak out about what the current system is doing to my guild.

1) My guild leader effectively left the game as a direct result of this change because he was frustrated that he spent alot of $ on guild renown elixirs and now the system was changed in a way that makes it harder for our guild while large guilds like yours get a significant decay reduction
2) I have now stopped posting lfms and group less with people so I can run content enough to cover decay
3) Large guilds are now recruiting veterans from small guilds on Sarlona

[Chaos000]

I will have to point out that veteran poaching is not exclusive to large guilds. Also, if a guild has a solid base, no amount of talking will bring a veteran to defect to another guild if it means they have to leave their friends behind. I'm sure if it came to it, they could also leave a placeholder character behind in their old guild so as not to cost them renown for pulling all their active characters out.

Any thoughts on suspending guild decay at a cost/day? It's definitely an idea that could net turbine a consistent form of income and give players a manner in which it advance or deal with the current ransack mechanic.

People have also made the comment that the majority of renown potions used and bought are by small guilds. Increasing the numeric value x20 of renown potions could make them more worthwhile to buy and not be a waste of money.

[Hendrik]

Nobody is asking for an entitlement except when you claim you should be able to keep 75% of the renown for members you boot from your guild. Asking to keep renown from people you booted from your guild is an entitlement. You are getting the rewards for renown they earned - they are not.

What we are asking for is the same opporunity that other large guilds have to advance without decay being a major impedent. We just want to be able to keep more of the renown we earn - just as your guild can do under the new system.

This is the only reason your guild was able to advance - reduced decay. Why do you want other guilds to not be given the chance to advance as you can?

Instead of repeating the same thing over and over, suggest more then one or two ideas.

Debate ideas many have posted.

[Hendrik]

Thank you for acknowledging two points:

1) high decay/player is difficult to overcome. We are still in this situation you used to be in and yes it is difficult for most small guilds.

2) For acknowledging that the advice you you are giving doesn't really work when a guild is struggling with high decay. I already knew this was the case which is why I dismissed it. Our guild is doing what the people in our guild want it to do. Just as yours did.

We would like to get a reduction in decay just as your guild received.

But your overcoming decay now.

And you will continue to do so until you hit the next plateau. At some point you will just have to accept it, at some time in the future, you will hit it. Be it at 80, 83, 85. You will hit it. Then, your 'done'. You have hit the max level your Guild can attain with the membership you have and activity level they have.

Strive to get as far as you can go and reap the rewards from it. At that point you will have to make more decisions - and changing the system again, when/if it is changed again, won't be an option.

Enjoy your climb.

And your difference in Decay from Old to New is;

Based on your 9 accounts;

(OLD) 9+10*845.028800 = 16055
(NEW) 10+10*845.028800 = 16900

Difference = 845

You are paying 845 more in decay in this system. 94 more decay per player. Less then a Heroic Deed pull.

Add one account and you break even but you would go from a size bonus of 255 to 240% - but size bonus does not matter to you.

I'm sure there is at least ONE unguilded player on Sarlona. That would help you in the short term until a fix gets in.

Do you need the location of a loot run that will make you renown?

[slarden]

But your overcoming decay now.

And you will continue to do so until you hit the next plateau. At some point you will just have to accept it, at some time in the future, you will hit it. Be it at 80, 83, 85. You will hit it. Then, your 'done'. You have hit the max level your Guild can attain with the membership you have and activity level they have.

Strive to get as far as you can go and reap the rewards from it. At that point you will have to make more decisions - and changing the system again, when/if it is changed again, won't be an option.

Enjoy your climb.

And your difference in Decay from Old to New is;

Based on your 9 accounts;

(OLD) 9+10*845.028800 = 16055
(NEW) 10+10*845.028800 = 16900

Difference = 845

You are paying 845 more in decay in this system. 94 more decay per player. Less then a Heroic Deed pull.

Add one account and you break even but you would go from a size bonus of 255 to 240% - but size bonus does not matter to you.

I'm sure there is at least ONE unguilded player on Sarlona. That would help you in the short term until a fix gets in.

Do you need the location of a loot run that will make you renown?

At this point my guild is earning more renown/player than your guild. The problem isn't earning with the new system. The problem is that small guilds still have a very high decay/player ratio. This is why your guild was stuck previously. You are no longer stuck because you received a decay reduction.

It's now time for small guilds to get a decay reduction.

We add members when it is natural to do so. Not because you think we should. As you've already shown from your own experieince with your guild, your ideas didn't work for 2 years. They didn't work because decay is the issue and not our guild's activity or actions.

[Blue100000005]

Yes, back in 2010.


Renown Decay

A guild’s level represent’s their current stature, and that stature is based on their renown. If “renown” is your guild’s “fame,” then your guild is like a famous actor, but in more ways than one! With a successful actor, the level of their fame can decline if they’re removed from the public eye for an extended period of time. The same is true for a guild’s renown – it can fade if the guild is not keeping active around the city thwarting monsters and waging battles of glory. If a guild were able to rise to an impressively high level and then cease to be active, their renown would start to decay as the tales of their heroics faded into memory.

For the first part of a guild’s level progression, decay of a guild’s renown isn’t a concern, but as a guild’s level increases beyond a certain threshold, they start to face additional challenges progressing – and maintaining - their renown and guild level. This mostly pertains to ambitious guilds that attain very high renown; we felt that this would create an exciting dynamic and foster some friendly competition! Who can rise to the top, and stay at the top, of the city’s list of famous guilds?

That is accepted as LOGICAL?

How many people more would buy pots if there was no decay? I would. Would you?

Why not have decay happen at higher levels if it really is needed. above level 70 or 80. For those guilds that get enjoyment out of proving something. I just want fair ship buffs so I can recruit people and have more to run with and less PUGS. That is why nearly daily i say ship buffs not the decay is the real issue.

[smatt]

Nobody is asking for an entitlement except when you claim you should be able to keep 75% of the renown for members you boot from your guild. Asking to keep renown from people you booted from your guild is an entitlement. You are getting the rewards for renown they earned - they are not.

What are you talking about?

What we are asking for is the same opporunity that other large guilds have to advance without decay being a major impedent. We just want to be able to keep more of the renown we earn - just as your guild can do under the new system.

You're like a broken Justin Bieber record, sane peoepl dont'e ven want ot hear Bieber in the unbroken fashio let alone the borken one... You've said this 1,000 times.. We get it...

This is the only reason your guild was able to advance - reduced decay. Why do you want other guilds to not be given the chance to advance as you can?

Again, what are you talking about.... I'm not saying it again.... Many of us have sdaid it over and over.. You're acting like the drunk guy in the bar who never hears what anybody say, he just keeps repeating the same sentance over and over...

We get it... I;m sure the Devs aren't even bothering to read you rposts any more, they understand your position... And I don't see legions of small guild leaders in thsi thread, at least not anymore, if there ever was....

We get it....

[smatt]

That is accepted as LOGICAL?

Sure, add in that they don't want guild ships to be a lounge.. Keep playing to keep the benefits.. Otherwise you will lose them.. Makes sense to me, guild ship buffs are pretty powerful things.

How many people more would buy pots if there was no decay? I would. Would you?

Nope...

Why not have decay happen at higher levels if it really is needed. above level 70 or 80. For those guilds that get enjoyment out of proving something. I just want fair ship buffs so I can recruit people and have more to run with and less PUGS. That is why nearly daily i say ship buffs not the decay is the real issue.

Decay is still there.... At all levels save prior to level 26 I think... So there you go....


It should stay, oh that decay....

[Charononus]

2) I have now stopped posting lfms and group less with people so I can run content enough to cover decay

I may have missed it but how in the world does having another person in the instance make it where you get more reknown? Sorry but this just makes zero sense to me, if it's about waiting to fill why not throw up an lfm for something like "elite, ip, byoh" That way if you really want to pug you can but don't have to wait for others or backtrack to take care of a pugger that joined. I understand what you're upset about, don't agree with you 100% because I think there should be a reason to have more people to accomplish a goal, but stating something that on the surface makes as little sense as this doesn't help your case.