Guild Renown Changes

[Blue100000005]

What are you talking about?

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...
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....

We get it, your happy cause you are advancing, screw everyone else...

[Gremmlynn]

That is accepted as LOGICAL?

I was thinking the same thing. Would any logical dev develop a game where, say, xp decayed? At least if they actually wanted people to play it? How is guild renown any different?

To me, the fact they changed the decay system the way they did tells me it isn't working. Before it told some players they didn't play enough for this game. Now it tells some they don't play in a big enough guild.

[Gremmlynn]

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.

You know those who don't play any more at all don't care and those who still play some are more likely to join those who don't play at all when their buffs go away than suddenly start toeing the line and letting Turbine tell them how much time they should be spending on video games. At least I hope we haven't become that much of a race of sheep.

[smatt]

We get it, your happy cause you are advancing, screw everyone else...

I've never said nor implied such a thing.

I suppose you should get XP for just sitting around chatting.....

[smatt]

You know those who don't play any more at all don't care and those who still play some are more likely to join those who don't play at all when their buffs go away than suddenly start toeing the line and letting Turbine tell them how much time they should be spending on video games. At least I hope we haven't become that much of a race of sheep.

[Hendrik]

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.

It is only VERY SMALL Guilds with members under 10 that have any more decay.

And in your case it is 94 more decay per person, decay that you are overcoming now.

Please use the proper terms to avoid confusion in the future.

Even under your suggestion to drop it to 10, you will still have more decay becuase that is more then the current accounts you have. It will not solve your problem.

You will no longer have 94 more decay per person by adding one account.

[Hendrik]

We get it, your happy cause you are advancing, screw everyone else...

And we get it, your unhappy your not. Screw everyone higher then you.

Until you get there too?

[Hendrik]

I was thinking the same thing. Would any logical dev develop a game where, say, xp decayed? At least if they actually wanted people to play it? How is guild renown any different?

To me, the fact they changed the decay system the way they did tells me it isn't working. Before it told some players they didn't play enough for this game. Now it tells some they don't play in a big enough guild.

Or like where you gained XP by being offline and not playing?

They changed that so that tells me Decay is working. You overcome it by playing.

[smatt]

Well, the system MIGHT HAVE BEEN designed to reward PLAYER ACTIVITY. Since about 2.5 months it rewards those that grow big. Any guild now eventually may reach lv. 100. All they have to do is to grow. And grow. And grow. And I think you failed to understand that you are arguing along obsolete lines now. Since about 2.5 months there is not a reward for activity any more, this has been REPLACED BY a reward for primarly SIZE.

Easy to grasp:
What has been the deciding factor in the old system? Increasing activity.
What is the deciding factor now in the new system? Increasing in size.

I would liek to add that another part of the reason my guild advanced to lvl 85 in the last 2+ months, further than we had in the previous 2 years was that we shrank, simply due to attrition (people leaving the game) from mid 90's active ACCOUNTS not characters, don'w to the mid-60's. So even without the change we would've started advancing albeit at a slower pace then we have. Under the old system our daily decay was 130k+ while in the mid-90's active accounts, Which was dropping dramatically as people left the game and our active accounts dropped. So we would've advanced in any case without the demonic "Stealing people from small guilds" or "Kicking casual players out" actions you people keep going on about.

You're so stuck on getting FREE stuff, you're not even thinking about your very own guild, it's activety levels, the FACT that the system was put in place to reward activety, and nto to be an in game welfare system. Ship buffs are a privilage given out in reward for game ongoing game activety...

How dare a reward be given for activety....

[Gremmlynn]

Or like where you gained XP by being offline and not playing?

They changed that so that tells me Decay is working. You overcome it by playing.

And you move backwards by not playing. Which would make this sort of game real popular with those for whom playing approaches an obsession and few others. Simply remove the backsliding and I think most would be happy. Any day you exceed decay you advance, any you don't you stay where you were.

IIRC they also removed xp loss after all.

[Gremmlynn]

I would liek to add that another part of the reason my guild advanced to lvl 85 in the last 2+ months, further than we had in the previous 2 years was that we shrank, simply due to attrition (people leaving the game) from mid 90's active ACCOUNTS not characters, don'w to the mid-60's. So even without the change we would've started advancing albeit at a slower pace then we have. Under the old system our daily decay was 130k+ while in the mid-90's active accounts, Which was dropping dramatically as people left the game and our active accounts dropped. So we would've advanced in any case without the demonic "Stealing people from small guilds" or "Kicking casual players out" actions you people keep going on about.

You're so stuck on getting FREE stuff, you're not even thinking about your very own guild, it's activety levels, the FACT that the system was put in place to reward activety, and nto to be an in game welfare system. Ship buffs are a privilage given out in reward for game ongoing game activety...

How dare a reward be given for activety....

This advancement would only have happened if those who left were earning less renown than what the guild, as a whole, earned on average per player. As 60 gets no bonus, if those players even earned an average amount of renown any loss in decay would have been matched by a loss in earning. If they were above average renown earners the guild would have back slid.

This is the problem with the system, It always works for those who play more than X hours/week and never works for those who don't. All the change did was lower the value of X for guilds with more members. I really don't see how rating guilds by how much and how fast their members play holds much more value than rating them by the height of their members.

[Nestroy]

I would liek to add that another part of the reason my guild advanced to lvl 85 in the last 2+ months, further than we had in the previous 2 years was that we shrank, simply due to attrition (people leaving the game) from mid 90's active ACCOUNTS not characters, don'w to the mid-60's. So even without the change we would've started advancing albeit at a slower pace then we have. Under the old system our daily decay was 130k+ while in the mid-90's active accounts, Which was dropping dramatically as people left the game and our active accounts dropped. So we would've advanced in any case without the demonic "Stealing people from small guilds" or "Kicking casual players out" actions you people keep going on about.

You're so stuck on getting FREE stuff, you're not even thinking about your very own guild, it's activety levels, the FACT that the system was put in place to reward activety, and nto to be an in game welfare system. Ship buffs are a privilage given out in reward for game ongoing game activety...

How dare a reward be given for activety....

Again, I call you out for arguing along the old system argument lines. Nobody wants the old system back. At least nobody who´s not somewhat insane.

The system has changed. Can we agree to that? Well then, can we agree too, that the system now prefers quantity (at least as long as these accounts are at least somewhat active) over quality (level of activity for each single account)? Yes? Fine, then, can we agree as well that when in the old system small guilds had a certain advantage in leveling (at least when hyperactive, otherwise they had not) over all other sizes? Ok, I do not think this to be needed to discuss again, but for the sake of completeness...

Now, can we agree that there had been a loud outcry especially from large guilds that got stuck in leveling to change the old system because renown decay was eating away any chance to level? You still agree with me?

Now, what is your problem exactly now that the small guilds do the loud outcry because now a free lunch was handed to the large guilds?

[Hendrik]

And you move backwards by not playing. Which would make this sort of game real popular with those for whom playing approaches an obsession and few others. Simply remove the backsliding and I think most would be happy. Any day you exceed decay you advance, any you don't you stay where you were.

IIRC they also removed xp loss after all.

Yep, and gaining xp while offline was removed. Like renown, you have to play to earn it.

[smatt]

Again, I call you out for arguing along the old system argument lines. Nobody wants the old system back. At least nobody who´s not somewhat insane.

The system has changed. Can we agree to that? Well then, can we agree too, that the system now prefers quantity (at least as long as these accounts are at least somewhat active) over quality (level of activity for each single account)? Yes? Fine, then, can we agree as well that when in the old system small guilds had a certain advantage in leveling (at least when hyperactive, otherwise they had not) over all other sizes? Ok, I do not think this to be needed to discuss again, but for the sake of completeness...

Now, can we agree that there had been a loud outcry especially from large guilds that got stuck in leveling to change the old system because renown decay was eating away any chance to level? You still agree with me?

Now, what is your problem exactly now that the small guilds do the loud outcry because now a free lunch was handed to the large guilds?

Well you see... Small guilds are still getting a free lunch, up to 3 times the renown they pull.... Which is fine... But you want them to get a big cheesecake with that free lunch... I won't repeat what I've said about the current system again... I say again, the only thing that it seems will make you happy is to be given everything for nothing. You don't want decay, you want larger small guild bonuses, anything else that can done for you? You seem to want the whole game designed around your particular playstyle... But maybe that's just my opinion on what you're asking for...

So if they just GIVE you everything will you be happy?

[smatt]

IIRC they also removed xp loss after all.

They should bring back the death penalty...

[Hendrik]

They should bring back the death penalty...

Where is the petition for that?



Death penatly and bravery streaks, mmm, the forum nerd rage would be seen from space.

[Chaos000]

Now, what is your problem exactly now that the small guilds do the loud outcry because now a free lunch was handed to the large guilds?

The problem I have with the assessment that the system now favors quantity over quality is that without some quality to each quantity this assumption cannot be made. Free lunch isn't truly free.

Guilds of all sizes were not complaining because of the renown decay applied to the guild, they were complaining because a player that does not exceed their personal renown decay will then apply the remaining as a burden for the rest of the guild therefore making it compulsory to remove players that are or become less active in order for a guild to have any hope for advancement.

Now the complaint is that by not associating a penalty to accounts that fall below the assumptive activity line, guilds exceeding a certain size is guaranteed max advancement no matter how low the activity of the entire guild. (that IS what it means by saying it's as if decay doesn't exist) Drawing the conclusion therefore that guilds of all sizes should also be guaranteed (by removing decay) max advancement.

If there is an adjustment made because of the perception of quantity having an advantage, lets at least be fair by not associating a penalty to accounts that fall below the assumptive activity line.

[Chaos000]

All the change did was lower the value of X for guilds with more members. I really don't see how rating guilds by how much and how fast their members play holds much more value than rating them by the height of their members.

Correction. All the change did was make the contribution of even the least active member count towards the guild total. Prior to the change, least active members counted against the guild total.

Added member despite how little they contribute now results in less work for the most active members.

You posit that guilds with more members lower the value of X. In practice then, for each added f2p placeholder or bank account (logged in once a month counts as "active"), it should lower the value of X, even IF their contribution is 0.

[slarden]

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.

The reason is quite simple. Forming the party takes time, waiting for everyone to get to the quest takes time and running at the pace of a pug party takes time. While I don't mind any of these things, it means I generate less renown. After soloing and zerging for a few months, I found I earn much more renown. The reason is becasue decay is a timed event. If I can't earn enough renown before decay hits we move backwards.

[Chaos000]

The reason is quite simple. Forming the party takes time, waiting for everyone to get to the quest takes time and running at the pace of a pug party takes time. While I don't mind any of these things, it means I generate less renown.

This remains true for a guild you know.

Forming a larger guild take time, waiting for members to log in and gain renown takes time, gaining renown at the pace (level of activity) of a smaller guild takes time. It means it takes more effort for larger guilds to have their members gain renown.

Bumping up bonuses to smaller guilds to match that of larger guilds must be with the assumption that smaller guilds will have an easier time being more active in comparison to their larger counterparts.