Guild Renown Changes

[slarden]

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.

I am not going to bother correcting your mistakes here, they have been corrected previously but since the system has always been confusing I don;t think you are doing it intentionally.

I agree changing the fixed value from 20 to 10 will still leave the system highly favoring large guilds. However, the reason I am suggesting this is because the developers were looking for tweaks that were easy and consistent with their goals. Merely changing the fixed multiplier accomplishes the goals stated earlier in this thread while giving all guilds a chance to advance beyond where they currently are. It won't allow many small guilds currently stuck to advance to 100, 90 or even 80 but the biggest benefit is that it would allow guilds stuck below 55 to get the bigger ship. This should also be good for Turbine as that almost all guilds able to buy the level 55 ship with astral shards will do so rather than live with the level 50 plat ship.

While your guild was stuck at 80 prior to the change there are plenty of small guilds stuck at a much lower level. If they are willing to let large guilds like yours get to 100 without a decay impediment, I am not sure why you or the developers would wish to prevent these lower level small guilds from getting their level 55 ship. It's obvious that your only goal is to ensure that large guilds have an overwhelming advantage over small guilds. I am not sure why the developers would be reluctant to make such a change unless there was a hidden goal of keeping small guilds dependent on guild elixirs and store shrines. Since they are silent on the issue I will assume they are being honest and this is not a goal of the system.

[slarden]

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.

This is actually not true as larger guilds ALWAYS have more renown earning power than their smaller guild counterparts with a guild bonus. All the small guild bonus does is give small guilds more earning power so they can reach levels a little faster - but still slower than larger guilds.

A guild of 6 has renown earning power of 24 with the maximum renown bonus available. They are getting decay for 20. A guild of 100 has renown earning power of 100 and decay of 20.

So a guild that is able to earn the renown equivalent to 24 while getting decay for 20 does not give an advantage over a guild of 100 earning renown for 100 and getting decay of 20. The larger guild always has the advantage in this case and only extremely high activity levels by the guild of 6 could overcome this disadvantage.

Under the old system the smaller guild had lower per member decay due to a flawed account calculation that was (account size +10) and should have been (account size * (1+guild bonus)). The small guild advantage was very slight compared to the current advantage large guilds have. I don't think we should go back to the old decay system, but I think we should give small guilds a decay break so that all guilds can move forward more than they could under the old high decay system.

[slarden]

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?

Yes of course this is what happened. I think the reason a few people from large guilds are lobbying so hard to keep small gulds from getting a decay reduction is because they want an in-game advantage over those smaller guilds.

I mean if the decay account multiplier was changed from 20 to 10, a guild of 10 people stuck at level 60 would advance 2 levels in a full year. While they fight to deny this small guild 2 levels, large guilds have gained 5, 10, 14 levels since the change a few months ago and will easily advance to 100. They aren't looking for what is best for the game, but what is best for their guild.

[Hendrik]

I am not going to bother correcting your mistakes here, they have been corrected previously but since the system has always been confusing I don;t think you are doing it intentionally.

I showed my math, right or not, to back up the statement I made based off the wiki forumula from the old and new system.

Please do me the common courtesy to do the same. I want to understand where you are coming from but you only repeat the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, without offering any counter proposals to the many ideas posted by the very same large guilds you seem to have a vendetta against.

To me, again right or wrong, it is seems like you want 10 to suit your size and what may or may not be the best for all.

[blerkington]

Hi,

I've been following this thread, and posted a couple of times earlier on.

My guild made 55 last night, a little unexpectedly. It was late, and I'd had a good run of large renown rewards right at the end of my session.

So after upgrading my airship, it occurred to me that if I logged off then, with less than the amount of renown I needed to protect against a level loss due to daily decay, I'd be back down to 54.

And not just on 54, but also with the penalty to earning renown that occurs for 24 hours after levelling up a guild. Which could mean I'd level to 55 the following day then lose the level once again if I didn't get lucky with renown rewards because I won't have a lot of time to play.

So, what I'd like to suggest is that the penalty to earning renown after levelling only be applied after gaining the second or subsequent guild levels in one day. I think that would do a little to prevent a yo-yo effect when levelling due to the penalty. That will help guilds of all sizes who are accumulating renown slowly.

Aside from that, I'm just going to make an observation about how poisonous this thread seems to have become. Specifically, the way some of the people from larger guilds in this thread seem so worked up about small guilds asking for a reduction to decay.

The reference to welfare particularly ridiculous, given that there is no better example of welfare than joining a large guild which you have done nothing to advance, then cruising along at a low level of personal activity which is now allowable under much more favourable decay rules.

That is in fact the very definition of being carried by other people, ie welfare, yet somehow it's the people from smaller guilds are being portrayed as wanting handouts? Amazing. The term welfare is hardly relevant to this discussion anyway, but in this case it's being hilariously misapplied.

I am personally very glad that the larger guilds got a break from decay, because it's clear they had to make some unpleasant choices to cull members if they wanted to advance. I'd just like to see similarly opportunities for very small guilds, and also see a lot less effort being devoted in this thread towards keeping other people down.

Thanks.

[slarden]

hi,

i've been following this thread, and posted a couple of times earlier on.

My guild made 55 last night, a little unexpectedly. It was late, and i'd had a good run of large renown rewards right at the end of my session.

So after upgrading my airship, it occurred to me that if i logged off then, with less than the amount of renown i needed to protect against a level loss due to daily decay, i'd be back down to 54.

And not just on 54, but also with the penalty to earning renown that occurs for 24 hours after levelling up a guild. Which could mean i'd level to 55 the following day then lose the level once again if i didn't get lucky with renown rewards because i won't have a lot of time to play.

So, what i'd like to suggest is that the penalty to earning renown after levelling only be applied after gaining the second or subsequent guild levels in one day. I think that would do a little to prevent a yo-yo effect when levelling due to the penalty. That will help guilds of all sizes who are accumulating renown slowly.

Aside from that, i'm just going to make an observation about how poisonous this thread seems to have become. Specifically, the way some of the people from larger guilds in this thread seem so worked up about small guilds asking for a reduction to decay.

The reference to welfare particularly ridiculous, given that there is no better example of welfare than joining a large guild which you have done nothing to advance, then cruising along at a low level of personal activity which is now allowable under much more favourable decay rules.

That is in fact the very definition of being carried by other people, ie welfare, yet somehow it's the people from smaller guilds are being portrayed as wanting handouts? Amazing. The term welfare is hardly relevant to this discussion anyway, but in this case it's being hilariously misapplied.

I am personally very glad that the larger guilds got a break from decay, because it's clear they had to make some unpleasant choices to cull members if they wanted to advance. I'd just like to see similarly opportunities for very small guilds, and also see a lot less effort being devoted in this thread towards keeping other people down.

Thanks.

+1

[Blue100000005]

Hi,

I've been following this thread, and posted a couple of times earlier on.

My guild made 55 last night, a little unexpectedly. It was late, and I'd had a good run of large renown rewards right at the end of my session.

So after upgrading my airship, it occurred to me that if I logged off then, with less than the amount of renown I needed to protect against a level loss due to daily decay, I'd be back down to 54.

And not just on 54, but also with the penalty to earning renown that occurs for 24 hours after levelling up a guild. Which could mean I'd level to 55 the following day then lose the level once again if I didn't get lucky with renown rewards because I won't have a lot of time to play.

So, what I'd like to suggest is that the penalty to earning renown after levelling only be applied after gaining the second or subsequent guild levels in one day. I think that would do a little to prevent a yo-yo effect when levelling due to the penalty. That will help guilds of all sizes who are accumulating renown slowly.

Aside from that, I'm just going to make an observation about how poisonous this thread seems to have become. Specifically, the way some of the people from larger guilds in this thread seem so worked up about small guilds asking for a reduction to decay.

The reference to welfare particularly ridiculous, given that there is no better example of welfare than joining a large guild which you have done nothing to advance, then cruising along at a low level of personal activity which is now allowable under much more favourable decay rules.

That is in fact the very definition of being carried by other people, ie welfare, yet somehow it's the people from smaller guilds are being portrayed as wanting handouts? Amazing. The term welfare is hardly relevant to this discussion anyway, but in this case it's being hilariously misapplied.

I am personally very glad that the larger guilds got a break from decay, because it's clear they had to make some unpleasant choices to cull members if they wanted to advance. I'd just like to see similarly opportunities for very small guilds, and also see a lot less effort being devoted in this thread towards keeping other people down.

Thanks.

Totally agree with you take on welfare.

And to the arrogant that think I am upset cause I am not leveling...I am just still think it is short sighted of you to have the id mentality.

[slarden]

I showed my math, right or not, to back up the statement I made based off the wiki forumula from the old and new system.

Please do me the common courtesy to do the same. I want to understand where you are coming from but you only repeat the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, without offering any counter proposals to the many ideas posted by the very same large guilds you seem to have a vendetta against.

To me, again right or wrong, it is seems like you want 10 to suit your size and what may or may not be the best for all.

I am not going to bother because you are going to simply misquote me and attack me as you always do. You aren't interested in where I am coming from. You are interested in portraying small guilds in a negative light and trying to make a difficult situation for small guilds even worse.

I've posted the ideas plenty of times. In one thread you ask me to post my ideas. So I repost my ideas just in case you actually missed them. Then you claim I am repeating myself after demanding I post my ideas. You demand information about my guild and then tell me to only talk about my guild. Your goal and a few others here is quite simple - derail the discussion and drive away as many folks from small guilds as you can so when the devs happen to pop in they see arguments and pop right back out. It may very well work, but it doesn't make it right.

Your guild received over a 77% reduction in decay. Changing the decay multiplier from 20 to 10 would allow the numerous small guilds stuck below level 55 to move forward and have something to work towards. They would be getting a 50% reduction and would still have far less earning power than your guild to advance levels.

Prior to this decay you were stuck around level 80 and were unhappy with the system. Small guilds are still stuck with high decay and now have a very difficult ransack penalty on top of it when they actually gain a level.

The reduction of the decay multiplier from 20 to 10 would allow a small guild stuck at level 60 to advance 1-2 levels in a full year. Your guild advanced more than that in a few months under the new system for only reason: the massive reduction in decay.

Why you and a few others wish to deny these stuck small guilds the opportunity to gain a few levels in a year is really difficult to understand. There is no real good reason to do so - you just wish to make it difficult for others.

[slarden]

Totally agree with you take on welfare.

And to the arrogant that think I am upset cause I am not leveling...I am just still think it is short sighted of you to have the id mentality.

They are simply trying to drive you away. They've successfully done that with some people already.

I appreciate your posts because you are the only person representing a demographic that has been totally ignored by the devs as we discuss small guilds, large guilds, high-level small guilds....

And that is start-up guilds. I completely empathisize with the difficulty you are describing because during the evolution of our guild at level 1 we experienced the same exact thing. We were new and recruited mostly new players. Once they learned they could get nice buffs from higher level guilds they tried to find a guild that those things - we didn't.

As for their welfare claims - it's bogus.

Small guilds are simply asking for a small version of what large guilds already received - a modest reduction in decay. Large guilds received a massive reduction in decay already. Don't let them fool you - they were stuck and only started moving because of a reduction in decay - not because of any of the actions they are recommending to others.

[Nestroy]

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?

But you are aware that the intention behind the small guild size bonus has been to even out the big advantage large guilds have in gaining renonw. The original intention never has been to battle decay with that bonus.

The decay system has been rotten from the very beginning. To use the small guild size bonus to battle decay was a side benefit not brought into calculation from the devs originally, I fear. it took them 2 years (and many larger guilds complaining because they got stuck) to found out. And then the quick fix of what we now see as the new system. Bad again, this time the other direction.

But the size bonus never ever had an original intention of battling decay or prefering small guilds over large ones.

On a side note, if the decay system is reworked we can discuss about the size bonuses as well. You know my calculations and that the benefit handed to large guilds would equal about a small guild max size bonus of 3000 % instead of 300%? OK, then you know that I also said that there should be a size bonus well up into the 300s of active accounts which would virtually encompas all guilds on all servers to get at least some (albeit small) bonus? This would be one way to even things out. There would be another: Abolishing decay, binding bonus to something other than size, like some mentioned here, bound to pots you have to buy (or find), bound to player activity,whatever. I do not stick to the size bonus, I do not even so feverishly defend it as you now defend the new decay system. I am very vocal for a complete rework of the system. Until then, it would be fair to marginalize decay for everybody, not only for large guilds. They have doen the quick and dirty fix one time, they can do another.

[smatt]

Hi,

I've been following this thread, and posted a couple of times earlier on.

My guild made 55 last night, a little unexpectedly. It was late, and I'd had a good run of large renown rewards right at the end of my session.

So after upgrading my airship, it occurred to me that if I logged off then, with less than the amount of renown I needed to protect against a level loss due to daily decay, I'd be back down to 54.

And not just on 54, but also with the penalty to earning renown that occurs for 24 hours after levelling up a guild. Which could mean I'd level to 55 the following day then lose the level once again if I didn't get lucky with renown rewards because I won't have a lot of time to play.

So, what I'd like to suggest is that the penalty to earning renown after levelling only be applied after gaining the second or subsequent guild levels in one day. I think that would do a little to prevent a yo-yo effect when levelling due to the penalty. That will help guilds of all sizes who are accumulating renown slowly.

I agreed with this postion all along... I think the ransack penalty is too tight, it should be after 2 levels. But you see I'm not going to say that in every post... I'm pretty sure many others have said the same thing...

Aside from that, I'm just going to make an observation about how poisonous this thread seems to have become. Specifically, the way some of the people from larger guilds in this thread seem so worked up about small guilds asking for a reduction to decay.

My only disagreement is with people who want decay to go away completely. I think it serves a legitimate purpose. Oh and with a good number of the sweaping change ideas...

The reference to welfare particularly ridiculous, given that there is no better example of welfare than joining a large guild which you have done nothing to advance, then cruising along at a low level of personal activity which is now allowable under much more favourable decay rules.

I suppose you could look at it that way....

That is in fact the very definition of being carried by other people, ie welfare, yet somehow it's the people from smaller guilds are being portrayed as wanting handouts? Amazing. The term welfare is hardly relevant to this discussion anyway, but in this case it's being hilariously misapplied.

Free stuff.......

I am personally very glad that the larger guilds got a break from decay, because it's clear they had to make some unpleasant choices to cull members if they wanted to advance. I'd just like to see similarly opportunities for very small guilds, and also see a lot less effort being devoted in this thread towards keeping other people down.

Thanks.

Nope what it is, is disagreeing with people that want a free ride... Guild ships are a reward for activety over a long period of time... Yes, sometimes a VERY long period of time.....

Coming soon to the DDO store near you.... Buy your way straight to the top... (I'm not kidding)

[smatt]

But you are aware that the intention behind the small guild size bonus has been to even out the big advantage large guilds have in gaining renonw. The original intention never has been to battle decay with that bonus.

I never would've known had you not told me

The decay system has been rotten from the very beginning. To use the small guild size bonus to battle decay was a side benefit not brought into calculation from the devs originally, I fear. it took them 2 years (and many larger guilds complaining because they got stuck) to found out. And then the quick fix of what we now see as the new system. Bad again, this time the other direction.

No I have a feelign they knew the system was flawed.. But just as with everything else DDO, it gets prioritized.... It was a VERY low priority according to the man in charge (name withheld to protect the guilty). Just as it is now...

But the size bonus never ever had an original intention of battling decay or prefering small guilds over large ones.

The size bonus was to somewhat make-up the long drag to the higher levels for small guilds. Unfortuantely the system was designed to be "gamed" and it was by a good number of guilds. The others go tleft behind.

On a side note, if the decay system is reworked we can discuss about the size bonuses as well. You know my calculations and that the benefit handed to large guilds would equal about a small guild max size bonus of 3000 % instead of 300%? OK, then you know that I also said that there should be a size bonus well up into the 300s of active accounts which would virtually encompas all guilds on all servers to get at least some (albeit small) bonus? This would be one way to even things out. There would be another: Abolishing decay, binding bonus to something other than size, like some mentioned here, bound to pots you have to buy (or find), bound to player activity,whatever. I do not stick to the size bonus, I do not even so feverishly defend it as you now defend the new decay system. I am very vocal for a complete rework of the system. Until then, it would be fair to marginalize decay for everybody, not only for large guilds. They have doen the quick and dirty fix one time, they can do another.

You really dont' read a lot do you? I'm nto defening the specifics of the decay system.. I'm only defending that there needs to be decay...

One more time.. Yes I agree the ransack penalty after leveing is overly punitive.. Yes I agree that the base set for deacy is unfair to small guilds, even the oens that are actualyl TRYING to level their guild as oppossed to sitting around complaining about it. I haven't really seen anybody post in this thread that hasn't agreed with those things....

[Charononus]

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.

I'd like to make a suggestion then. I solo/zerg a lot too, however for different reasons, I just want xp as fast as I can on tr lives. That said I tend to get xp much faster when I don't have to wait ext same as you get more reknown. I however tend to throw up "byoh zerg ip" lfms. I go in and start clearing as fast as I can, if someone joins they can catch up and help, however I don't slow down for them or go back for them ext. 99% of the time when someone joins it actually speeds up the progress as two people mowing down everything in sight goes quite a bit faster than just one in most cases. Try it out, at least on Thelanis putting up a zerg lfm gets you you other zergers, your mileage on other servers may vary, but on Thelanis at least your system would not be optimal.

[Hendrik]

I am not going to bother because you are going to simply misquote me and attack me as you always do.

You cannot misquote basic math. And you are not in a Small Guild, you are Very Small unless you added 2 more accounts.

All from the Wiki;

Accounts 1 to 9 are Very Small.
11 - 25 are Small.
26 - 50 are Medium.

Old Decay : (LevelMultiplier * AccountMultiplier). The account-based multiplier is the Modified Guild Size + 10.

New : Account-based multiplier is therefore ( Max(Modified Guild Size,10) + 10 )

Based of your 9 accounts;

OLD: 9+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16055
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 845 More in new

Lets continue by adding 1 account each time;


OLD: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 0

OLD: 11+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 17745
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 845 Less in new

OLD: 12+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 18590
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 1690 Less in new

OLD: 13+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 19435
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 2535 less in new

OLD: 14+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 20280
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 3380 less in new

OLD: 15+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 21125
NEW: 10+10 * 845.028800 (L76) = 16900

Difference = 4225 less in new

See the pattern yet? As you have 10 accounts and add more, the less Decay in the new system you have. That means the inverse is true, the less accounts you have from 10, the more Decay you have.

Those small guild you are campaining for have either no change in decay or are seeing less. It is the very small that seem to have more. It is only the very small that need some attention, if any.

Since you have proven that your very small is overcoming the larger decay there may or may not be a case for further changes for very small guilds only.

I welcome you to use the wiki information to back up your claims with math.

[smatt]

Stoooooooppppppiddd math....

Now where's that stupid Shade quote about math only mucking things up...

[Chaos000]

This is actually not true as larger guilds ALWAYS have more renown earning power than their smaller guild counterparts with a guild bonus. All the small guild bonus does is give small guilds more earning power so they can reach levels a little faster - but still slower than larger guilds.

I understand that your argument hinges on inequality based on renown earning power.

I'm sorry but earning power isn't worth beans. A player logging in to say "hi" that gains no renown or a player logging in once a month killing a couple things in the explorer zone gaining 5 renown and logging off... therefore counted as "active" mucks up your assertion.

Apply a theoretical assuming all casual players gaining 5 renown, all active players gaining 1,500. Same percentage ratio of casual and active, then apply the guild bonus.

[Hendrik]

Stoooooooppppppiddd math....

Now where's that stupid Shade quote about math only mucking things up...

LOL


I thought of that when making the post.

However, DEVs respond to math when shown to prove or disprove something.

Smatt, can you check my math and make sure i did not make errors with the old and new system if you have time?

[Chaos000]

I am personally very glad that the larger guilds got a break from decay, because it's clear they had to make some unpleasant choices to cull members if they wanted to advance. I'd just like to see similarly opportunities for very small guilds, and also see a lot less effort being devoted in this thread towards keeping other people down.

Smaller guilds also had to make some unpleasant choices to cull members if they wanted to advance. With the change, not factoring in size bonuses, all guilds gain no benefit for reducing in size because there is no penalty per account being removed.

Very small guilds can and have reached the maximum rank. Very large guilds could not. With the change now very large guilds can reach the maximum rank as can very small guilds. I'm in agreement that there could be steps to make it easier for MORE very small guilds reach the maximum rank provided bonuses cannot be gained by reducing in size.

I agree that renown ransack should not apply after a first level gained, that there should be something additional to help out small guilds (example: decay multiplier from 20 to 10, boost guilds of 10 and under to that of a guild of 11, apply a x20 multiplier on existing renown potions, introduce a ddo store item that suspends decay for a day, change bonuses to not be based on size...)

What I have an issue with is complaints that decay no longer exists for large guilds due to renown decreasing per each added player with the assumption that there is no decline in activity the larger a guild gets or that non renown gaining players do not exist. Then there is the comparison between tiny guilds to extremely large guilds when a large guild to a far larger guild deals with the same argumentative issue.

[Chaos000]

On a side note, if the decay system is reworked we can discuss about the size bonuses as well. You know my calculations and that the benefit handed to large guilds would equal about a small guild max size bonus of 3000 % instead of 300%? OK, then you know that I also said that there should be a size bonus well up into the 300s of active accounts which would virtually encompass all guilds on all servers to get at least some (albeit small) bonus? This would be one way to even things out. There would be another: Abolishing decay, binding bonus to something other than size, like some mentioned here, bound to pots you have to buy (or find), bound to player activity,whatever. I do not stick to the size bonus, I do not even so feverishly defend it as you now defend the new decay system. I am very vocal for a complete rework of the system. Until then, it would be fair to marginalize decay for everybody, not only for large guilds. They have done the quick and dirty fix one time, they can do another.

+1

I think the benefit gained by the largest large guild would have to be dispersed equally to all guilds smaller to it. Otherwise if small guilds gain the bonus of a large guild of 300 for example. They are better off than the smallest large guild of 51 who did not gain the bonus of a larger large guild of 300.

[slarden]

I understand that your argument hinges on inequality based on renown earning power.

I'm sorry but earning power isn't worth beans. A player logging in to say "hi" that gains no renown or a player logging in once a month killing a couple things in the explorer zone gaining 5 renown and logging off... therefore counted as "active" mucks up your assertion.

Apply a theoretical assuming all casual players gaining 5 renown, all active players gaining 1,500. Same percentage ratio of casual and active, then apply the guild bonus.

But again, this issue exists in guilds of all sizes and isn't exclusive to only large guilds. Unless Turbine redifines the term "Active" then we have to live with their definition since it's all we have. Of course people in guilds of all sizes log in and don't play and/or play very little. However, the larger guild still has more renown earning power. The test we are running illustrates this very clearly.