Guild Renown Changes

[smatt]

I had my troubles with 3e too, and 3.5e just minimized some of the worst blunders. I am still of the opinion that AD&D 2.5 was a very well rounded system, albeit somewhat complex. With 3e and 3.5e I always liked the idea of an open gaming license. But you are perfectly right, books, books, books. But at least you could play with just 3 books: Player´s, Dungeon Master´s and Monster Manual. There were no trading cards and no need to buy new books big time (except perhaps the FR resourcebook).

What really gave me the rest for 4e was when I saw the trading cards 1st time.

I read about 10 pages into the 4E players handbook and wanted to burn it.....

[Artos_Fabril]

Please read the posts before making errant comments. I am not the only one making this into a big vs. small guild argument. Several people from large and small guilds post ideas and one or two people from larger guilds argue that if decay were to go away small guild bonus should be removed too.

Read read read. One or two folks from large guilds are saying we are asking for a free ride, don't want to earn anything and want everything handed to us for asking for a decay reduction.

I am very tired of this which is why i signed up for the new D&D MMO.

Fixed that for you.

[smatt]

Please read the posts before making errant comments. I am not the one making this into a big vs. small guild argument. Several people from small guilds post ideas and the big guilds argue that not only should decay stay the way it is - small guild bonus should be removed on top of it.

Read read read. The folks from large guilds are saying we are asking for a free ride, don't want to earn anything and want everything handed to us for asking for a decay reduction.

I am very tired of this which is why i signed up for the new D&D MMO.

I'm not sure who you're talking about as far as people from larger guilds not wanting any changes for the very samll and small guilds, as far as lesser decay and or greater bonuses. It certainly hasn't been Hendrik or myself..... Perhaps you're being a little more dramatic than neccesary? I mean you fly off and accuse me of lying for no good reason..... So is it you who are perhaps being less than honest here?

[slarden]

I'm not sure who you're talking about as far as people from larger guilds not wanting any changes for the very samll and small guilds, as far as lesser decay and or greater bonuses. It certainly hasn't been Hendrik or myself..... Perhaps you're being a little more dramatic than neccesary? I mean you fly off and accuse me of lying for no good reason..... So is it you who are perhaps being less than honest here?

I pointed out in a few specific things you said about my guild that were not true after ignoring numerous other posts with similar comments misrepresenting my guilds activity level, grouping styles, etc.

You will have to see if you can find what word best describes what you were doing. You were saying things about my guild that were completely false. I didn't accuse you of anything - I pointed out what you said that was completely false.

I appreciate that you stopped saying false things about my guild after I called you out on it.

[slarden]

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

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

You must have missed something. My guild is actually more active than Hendrick's guild and most likely yours as well. Activity level is not the problem here and we now have #s to prove it. The reason you are getting there is because of a reduction in decay not because you encouraged each other. You did that prior to the decay reduction but were stuck if you recall your own words.

It's easy to say you are accomplishing something due to your great actions when you just received a massive decay reduction. All guilds will move foward with a decay reduction. Your guild received a decay reduction while the system is actually harder now for guilds of 10 and less.

The facts are very clear. You are moving forward because you received a decay reduction.

I would like to see the base decay rate changed from 20 to 10 so small guilds can get some decay reduction. I understand that you don't want to see small guilds get any changes unless small guild bonus is reduced, but I think it's unnecessary to reduce the guild bonus since large guilds received a massive decay reduction without reducing their earning power.

[Artos_Fabril]

My guild is actually more active than Hendrick's guild and most likely yours as well. Activity level is not the problem here and we now have #s to prove it. The reason you are getting there is because of a reduction in decay not because you encouraged each other. You did that prior to the decay reduction but were stuck if you recall your own words.

But you are also moving forward and beating decay, and you yourself have stated that you're okay with it taking longer to get there as the price of being a small, tight-knit family guild. Which makes it sound like you have everything you're fighting for, if not in exactly the way you want.

I've thrown out a half dozen ideas for how to make the system more fair, or just better (always in my own opinion, since I can't dictate anyone else's opinion). As well as supporting the elimination or further reduction of decay.

I don't know why you want this to be about a fight between large and small guilds, or why you choose to ignore the benefits that guilds between 11 and 50 accounts received, and instead prefer to focus on the difference between guilds of less than 10 and more than 100.

You've also never addressed the fact that guilds of 4 and of 10 have the same bonus, but guilds of 4 will have 2.5 times the decay per person as a guild of 10 for any decay amount greater than 0, and how that relates to decay/person as a measure of fairness.

You've stated that adding a player to your guild will always be beneficial from a renown earning perspective, yet claim that this is either intended or has the effect of keeping down guilds that want to add members only when they enjoy playing with them without regard to the amount of play time they can dedicate to the game.

Lately, your most common complaint has been that as a guild full of multi-TRs, you can't find new members by running with them because you only run with other multi-TR characters, who generally are already in another guild, or are unguilded by choice. This itself is a playstyle choice and entirely within your power to address. And since you're beating your decay by upwards of 200k per week, it's not like you can't afford to slow down a half second and start an alt or something. But if you continue to prefer an exclusive playstyle over an inclusive playstyle, I can't see why you would be surprised that Turbine isn't going out of their way to accommodate you when they're actively making changes to be more inclusive.

I pointed out in a few specific things you said about my guild that were not true after ignoring numerous other posts with similar comments misrepresenting my guilds activity level, grouping styles, etc.

You will have to see if you can find what word best describes what you were doing. You were saying things about my guild that were completely false. I didn't accuse you of anything - I pointed out what you said that was completely false.

I appreciate that you stopped saying false things about my guild after I called you out on it.

The difference between a lie and a mistake is having the correct information. Until you provided the correct information, no lie is possible.

[slarden]

But you are also moving forward and beating decay, and you yourself have stated that you're okay with it taking longer to get there as the price of being a small, tight-knit family guild. Which makes it sound like you have everything you're fighting for, if not in exactly the way you want.

I've thrown out a half dozen ideas for how to make the system more fair, or just better (always in my own opinion, since I can't dictate anyone else's opinion). As well as supporting the elimination or further reduction of decay.

I don't know why you want this to be about a fight between large and small guilds, or why you choose to ignore the benefits that guilds between 11 and 50 accounts received, and instead prefer to focus on the difference between guilds of less than 10 and more than 100.

You've also never addressed the fact that guilds of 4 and of 10 have the same bonus, but guilds of 4 will have 2.5 times the decay per person as a guild of 10 for any decay amount greater than 0, and how that relates to decay/person as a measure of fairness.

You've stated that adding a player to your guild will always be beneficial from a renown earning perspective, yet claim that this is either intended or has the effect of keeping down guilds that want to add members only when they enjoy playing with them without regard to the amount of play time they can dedicate to the game.

Lately, your most common complaint has been that as a guild full of multi-TRs, you can't find new members by running with them because you only run with other multi-TR characters, who generally are already in another guild, or are unguilded by choice. This itself is a playstyle choice and entirely within your power to address. And since you're beating your decay by upwards of 200k per week, it's not like you can't afford to slow down a half second and start an alt or something. But if you continue to prefer an exclusive playstyle over an inclusive playstyle, I can't see why you would be surprised that Turbine isn't going out of their way to accommodate you when they're actively making changes to be more inclusive.

The difference between a lie and a mistake is having the correct information. Until you provided the correct information, no lie is possible.

What I said is it is rare I ever run across anyone uguilded and I do not with to recruit from other guilds.

If you look at the previous charts posted, despite how active my guild is we are barely beating decay and get to keep much less of what we earn than other large guilds that are as active or less active than us.

My point is that my very active is guild is moving forward some weeks and backwards others - but overall forward some, but numerous small guilds can't move forward at all due to decay. There are so many small guilds that never made it to 60 while some of the large guilds here are around level 85 and 80 before the change.

I already know from experience if I start lfms instead of solo or zerg I can't earn renown quick enough and our guild will move backwards. I have plenty of experience to prove that. The reason I started soloing/zerging is not because that is the way I prefer to play, it was a way to keep the guild from moving backwards so our guildies don't get frustrated by lack of progress.

Hendrick's guild has similar recruitment criteria that we haye - we recruit people we've run with. In our case we only recruit unguilded which have been largely non-existant before and after the guild change. Why does my guild need to change to advance but his does not? We add people when it's a good fit, not to boost our guild level. Most mature guilds large and small are selective. This system change will do nothing to change that.

I have no desire to fight any guild. I am here making suggestions including the possibility of changing the fixed decay multiplier from 20 to 10 so small guilds can move forward. Why not just get behind that idea instead of attacking me if you want to see small guilds advance as you claim?

If you don't have the facts and make them up to prove a point, it is a lie.

[slarden]

To me this is the type of situation I've seen far too many times on this thread. Someone comes in from a small guild and provides their feedback about the guild system

FEEDBACK:

Our guild is pretty much stuck at 70. It's a decent ship. We will not advance to 71 anytime soon with the current system. We don't want to add more people just to level. I Like a small guild, I know everybody. So in the current system we either all quit our jobs, leave our families and move back in with our parents and play ddo in there basement until the screen becomes a blur we will never advance. If its turbines wish for only larger guilds to be able to reach 100 than so be it. It is what it is. Maybe next we can loose crafting xp for not deconing enough loot in a day. No matter what they do I will not play more or harbor invite.

LARGE GUILD RESPONSE QUOTING ABOVE FEEDBACK

Yep, because those are the ONLY options.



If you do not want to play more or invite then those are your choices.

Again the feedback provided is something I can relate to. When our guild hit the high 60s, that is about the time we started feeling the pain of decay for the first time. Decay is frustrating and under the old system guilds of all sizes commented on what it did to guild morale and how frustrating it was to be stuck. The actions that led to this change may have been directed towards inclusiveness, but those actions only occured because large guilds were stuck at a level and unable to advance. They made changes to try and move forward and DDO was not happy when they learned about this and changed the system. Except small guilds were left behind in a big way.

Small guilds are still stuck for the same reason large guilds were. Decay. They are equally frustrated. The comment above makes it appear the problem is that small guilds don't play enough or invite more people to the guild. What's the point in inviting when almost everyone is already in a guild and those that aren't are often unguilded by choice. Why should we have to recruit to advance. A guild that is stuck at level 70 is playing plenty just as large guilds stuck at 70 were. We already know that a small guild and large guild at the same level can have the same average activity level and the small guild will move backwards while the large guilds advances easily to 100. The problem isn't activity level despite it being misportrayed that way. As the OP here pointed out the problem is that decay prevents progress.... but only for small guilds.

[smatt]

I pointed out in a few specific things you said about my guild that were not true after ignoring numerous other posts with similar comments misrepresenting my guilds activity level, grouping styles, etc.

You will have to see if you can find what word best describes what you were doing. You were saying things about my guild that were completely false. I didn't accuse you of anything - I pointed out what you said that was completely false.

I appreciate that you stopped saying false things about my guild after I called you out on it.

No what you did what say I was a liar.... Let's be clear here.....

I replied that I am often wrong, but I'm not a liar. Simply put, I'm not going to read through every post in this thread, I would rather spend that time playing and earning guild renown

In any case, I think you seem to take what peopel say in one post a bit too seriously. In total the common contirbuters to this thread have stated many times that the system needs some tweaks. As for myself yes I agree there needs to be some tweaks.. But not the total elimination of decay, and nothing in the order of at least some posters talk of a 3,000% bonus for small guilds. I'm sorry all guilds are not equal, and IMO they shouldn't be.

[Hendrik]

This statement is untrue. Large guilds are not against this. Many members of large guilds have posted here that they are all for reducing decay even more, which is exactly what you proposed. Perhaps a few posters from large guilds are, but there is no evidence that large guilds in general are aginst it. You seem to be desperate to make this into large versus small debate when it is not. How many times do I have to say it? DID you not get it the first 50 times? Reducing decay even more would be a good thing!!!!

Yeesh. I am really getting tired of this.

Same ole broken record, huh.

He just ignores any/all idea's posted, even by large guilds, that are not exactly what he wants and always goes back to decay envy.

[Hendrik]

I'm not sure who you're talking about as far as people from larger guilds not wanting any changes for the very samll and small guilds, as far as lesser decay and or greater bonuses. It certainly hasn't been Hendrik or myself..... Perhaps you're being a little more dramatic than neccesary? I mean you fly off and accuse me of lying for no good reason..... So is it you who are perhaps being less than honest here?

It is because we post idea's other then just the same one over and over and over.

Actually post idea's and brainstorm on other posters idea's and work with them. Don't play the 'my way is only way' and 'people are picking on me' card.

Been posting idea's since the original system - oddly, some were very silent in that one.

[Hendrik]

But you are also moving forward and beating decay, and you yourself have stated that you're okay with it taking longer to get there as the price of being a small, tight-knit family guild. Which makes it sound like you have everything you're fighting for, if not in exactly the way you want.

I've thrown out a half dozen ideas for how to make the system more fair, or just better (always in my own opinion, since I can't dictate anyone else's opinion). As well as supporting the elimination or further reduction of decay.

I don't know why you want this to be about a fight between large and small guilds, or why you choose to ignore the benefits that guilds between 11 and 50 accounts received, and instead prefer to focus on the difference between guilds of less than 10 and more than 100.

You've also never addressed the fact that guilds of 4 and of 10 have the same bonus, but guilds of 4 will have 2.5 times the decay per person as a guild of 10 for any decay amount greater than 0, and how that relates to decay/person as a measure of fairness.

You've stated that adding a player to your guild will always be beneficial from a renown earning perspective, yet claim that this is either intended or has the effect of keeping down guilds that want to add members only when they enjoy playing with them without regard to the amount of play time they can dedicate to the game.

Lately, your most common complaint has been that as a guild full of multi-TRs, you can't find new members by running with them because you only run with other multi-TR characters, who generally are already in another guild, or are unguilded by choice. This itself is a playstyle choice and entirely within your power to address. And since you're beating your decay by upwards of 200k per week, it's not like you can't afford to slow down a half second and start an alt or something. But if you continue to prefer an exclusive playstyle over an inclusive playstyle, I can't see why you would be surprised that Turbine isn't going out of their way to accommodate you when they're actively making changes to be more inclusive.

The difference between a lie and a mistake is having the correct information. Until you provided the correct information, no lie is possible.

+1

Glad someone else is picking up on all this.

[Zargarx]

THE SOLUTION!

Every person is independent within the guild.
Each person gains renown as usual - NO MULTIPLIER. No small guild/ large guild issues.
Decay applies directly to to EACH person - no MIN(10, + ) stuff - no inactive/active status.
Minimum renown level is 0. No need to kick anybody out.

e.g. someone gains 100 renown on Tuesday. On Wednesday they lose 30 renown due to decay. Their total is then 70.
If they don't play, on Thursday they will be down to 40 renown. Eventually they will hit 0 but will not go below.

THIS FIXES EVERY ISSUE AND CONCERN ABOUT RENOWN AND DECAY!

You're welcome!

[Tshober]

I am very tired of this which is why i signed up for the new D&D MMO.

Then please go play your new game because you are just making up fantasy stuff here. I have read every post. Most posters from large guilds have said they are fine with decay being further reduced, or even eliminated entirely. I am from a large guild and i am fine with that. A few (not me) have said that eliminating the small guild bonuses would be better but only if decay is reduced as well. You have completely distorted things to try to make it look like it is the big guilds against the tiny guilds. This is completely false and, fortuntely, very transparent so it will be quite obvious to the devs, when they read it.


On a side note, I also tried out a new game this weekend. In it you can't even create a guild unless you have 10 accounts all logged in at once and ready to join it. It was not the game you mentioned, but if you think DDO is harsh on tiny guilds, you should get out more into the MMO world. Some MMO's don't even allow tiny guilds to exist, much less give them bonuses.

[Hendrik]

Then please go play your new game because you are just making up fantasy stuff here. I have read every post. Most posters from large guilds have said they are fine with decay being further reduced, or even eliminated entirely. I am from a large guild and i am fine with that. A few (not me) have said that eliminating the small guild bonuses would be better but only if decay is reduced as well. You have completely distorted things to try to make it look like it is the big guilds against the tiny guilds. This is completely false and, fortuntely, very transparent so it will be quite obvious to the devs, when they read it.


On a side note, I also tried out a new game this weekend. In it you can't even create a guild unless you have 10 accounts all logged in at once and ready to join it. It was not the game you mentioned, but if you think DDO is harsh on tiny guilds, you should get out more into the MMO world. Some MMO's don't even allow tiny guilds to exist, much less give them bonuses.

Your picking up on it too, good.

[Nestroy]

(...)On a side note, I also tried out a new game this weekend. In it you can't even create a guild unless you have 10 accounts all logged in at once and ready to join it. It was not the game you mentioned, but if you think DDO is harsh on tiny guilds, you should get out more into the MMO world. Some MMO's don't even allow tiny guilds to exist, much less give them bonuses.

If only Turbine would finally and clearly state anything about the rules. Before the change, anybody wanting to grow with a guild had to be hyper active, cull people that do not contribute big time (casuals, inactives, but even people that did sup par) and had to keep the guild small. Now the guilds have to grow big, big, big.

Swing-swing-swing-swing... No clear strategy, no clear commitment, nothing from the devs...

I would prefer a clear-cut system that only allows guilds of certain sizes any time over the swing-swing non-system from DDO. Even if that means I would loose our small guild.

Heck, if there had been a system of joining small guilds together, be it at TP costs, we meanwhile would be much bigger - perhaps not under our own name, but bigger none the less. And no system to break guilds apart. So with all the swings in strategy and with no posibillity to adjust to any new strategy the easy way, the DDO guild system is very frustrating to say the least.

[slarden]

Then please go play your new game because you are just making up fantasy stuff here. I have read every post. Most posters from large guilds have said they are fine with decay being further reduced, or even eliminated entirely. I am from a large guild and i am fine with that. A few (not me) have said that eliminating the small guild bonuses would be better but only if decay is reduced as well. You have completely distorted things to try to make it look like it is the big guilds against the tiny guilds. This is completely false and, fortuntely, very transparent so it will be quite obvious to the devs, when they read it.


On a side note, I also tried out a new game this weekend. In it you can't even create a guild unless you have 10 accounts all logged in at once and ready to join it. It was not the game you mentioned, but if you think DDO is harsh on tiny guilds, you should get out more into the MMO world. Some MMO's don't even allow tiny guilds to exist, much less give them bonuses.

I have posted facts, #s, examples from guilds as others demanded. You called small guilds "unpopular" amongst other names to misportray small guilds yourself.

Decay should be reduced without a change to small guild bonus. Large guilds received a reduction in decay without a nerf to their earning ability. Small guilds should receive the same. Even if decay was eliminated and small guild bonus remained, large guilds still have the advantage.

It is not fantasy, I posted one example of the type of comments made when small guilds post their concerns. This thread is full of the same type of ridiculous responses. You are doing as you always do, pretending to be fair while throwing digs at people in small guilds.

The system is not fair as it stands and needs a very significant adjustment.

As for other MMOs, DDO was the only one I ever played until recently. I can tell you star wars has no in-game disadvantages at all for guilds based on size. People are free to group as they wish without it impacting their questing. It seems like everyone likes the guild system there. I like it much better than this system.

[blerkington]

Hi,

I don't think it's been proven that Slarden is crying wolf. He is simply asking for a rebalancing of decay rates for small guilds.

What is surprising is the amount of venom that this request has attracted. Especially since at no point has he asked for anything to be taken away from medium sized or larger guilds.

I'm all for a discussion or argument of proposals like his in the forums. That can lead to improvements to the game. It can also help us see these issues in a different light.

What I'm not for is people using this thread as an excuse to bash him or anyone else who is asking for changes to the status quo. Argue the case, not the man.

Thanks.

[Gremmlynn]

Please read the posts before making errant comments. I am not the one making this into a big vs. small guild argument. Several people from small guilds post ideas and the big guilds argue that not only should decay stay the way it is - small guild bonus should be removed on top of it.

Read read read. The folks from large guilds are saying we are asking for a free ride, don't want to earn anything and want everything handed to us for asking for a decay reduction.

I am very tired of this which is why i signed up for the new D&D MMO.

Yes, there are still a few who think this should be a win/lose system rather than a pure participation system. But most of the concerns are more along the lines of pushing for equality of opportunity regardless of guild size.

Personally I have no problem with and actually think the optimal solution would be to simply remove decay. As far as size bonuses go, I've never been a fan, as they give incentive to optimizing the effect of the best players and leaving the rest out, so wouldn't mind seeing them go away.

Anyway, good luck with the new game. Though I can't see how someone could find anything about the current guild system that would make one leave the game. Which wasn't the case under the old.

[Gremmlynn]

I read about 10 pages into the 4E players handbook and wanted to burn it.....

More than it took me to put down the 3e PHB and walk away shaking my head.

It's really more a difference in play styles than anything. AD&D was very player centric, whereas 3e made things more character centric with the player being more of a meta strategist and 4e streamlining that meta-strategy.