Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

Sidenote, I would love to see a lot of guilds vanishing from the server roosters where there is lv. 0 and no active members...

IMO no active members should be an auto-disband, regardless of level.

[Nestroy]

Strange, I have the exact opposite experience. For me, if it wasn't for guildies I would rarely ever find another to play with on Wayfinder. Oh, and we grab up every new player we can as you never know if they might be one who sticks around. For the rest, well it really doesn't cost anything to have them around for as long as they do stay and makes it more likely that they do if they make attachments to the guild.

Always remember: Putting up a LFM is not too much of work and not everybody can play in Superiority Complex on Wayfinder.

By the way, just for the rub: When was the last time i saw a Superiority Complex only Raid in The Shroud, full manned?

[Nestroy]

IMO no active members should be an auto-disband, regardless of level.

I would give it a certain waiting time, e.g. 3-6 months. Then kick. Else +1.

[Tshober]

*lightbulb* - thought they just removed the account modifier completely - instead of basing it upon 20 accounts .... now makes sense.

don't know if I agree with changes - but think it would be more fair to do the following:

take the modified accounts as the multiplier - but cap it at 20.

so a guild like the one I am in which has 9 modified accounts then the multiplier would be 9; if guild has 300 account (more than 20) then the multipler would be 20. seems like a fair way to treat both large and small guilds.

seems much more fair.

This seems like a good suggestion to me. Similar to other suggestions that have been made that further reduce decay. And most of these further reducing of decay suggestions are super easy to implement because they are just a change in the math done when calculating daily decay. Two thumbs up!


Prediction: Slarden will totally ignore the fact that several large guild posters have been in favor of this idea (and others that further reduce decay) and he will just keep on complaining loudly that large guilds are beating up on his poor, defenseless, tiny little guild. And stealing his members too!

[Nestroy]

(...)Prediction: Slarden will totally ignore the fact that several large guild posters have been in favor of this idea (and others that further reduce decay) and he will just keep on complaining loudly that large guilds are beating up on his poor, defenseless, tiny little guild. And stealing his members too!

You have to admit that Slarden knows what he fights for. And do not worry too much - if he presses you guys from the bigger guilds too hard when you are on our side basically, I will remind him, coming time, on your post.

Sidenote: I never fully understood why on gods earth the devs had to artificially set the renown decay formula to 20 when they did the new system. Well, let´s hope we can find a way to convince them that MIN(members;20) is a good formula for the decay counter. +1 again for the original suggestion.

Edit: While we are at predictions, I herewith predict that smatt and Hendrik will find something to argue against the min(members;20) suggestion.

[Tshober]

Edit: While we are at predictions, I herewith predict that smatt and Hendrik will find something to argue against the min(members;20) suggestion.

Too late! smatt already endorsed it before you even predicted

Not a bad idea, and pretty easy to implement...

[Nestroy]

Too late! smatt already endorsed it before you even predicted

You are perfectly right and sorry, my oversight. Well, let´s wait until Slarden endorses it and let´s wait for the reaction of smatt then...

[Tshober]

Sidenote: I never fully understood why on gods earth the devs had to artificially set the renown decay formula to 20 when they did the new system. Well, let´s hope we can find a way to convince them that MIN(members;20) is a good formula for the decay counter. +1 again for the original suggestion.

It was simply an artifact that was embedded in the old decay system and not changed in the new one. My best guess as to why it was put into the old decay formula originally is that the devs did not want to encourage solo 1-man guilds, with or without multiple-accounts, so they hit them with some extra decay.

[Chaos000]

My best guess as to why it was put into the old decay formula originally is that the devs did not want to encourage solo 1-man guilds, with or without multiple-accounts, so they hit them with some extra decay.

See I don't see any sense in this as then you'll get complaints on the unfairness that solo 1-man guilds face. if they made the decay formula start at 1 and cap at 20, then all guilds outside of the guild of 1 gets a reduction in decay.

Doesn't instantly favor tiny guilds so I don't really see the issue.

[slarden]

Then you should not say it then if you do not want it repeated.

That does not mean we have 0 on for days at a time. There are time we have 0 on because people have other things to do such as eat, sleep, etc.. Many guilds have times during the week where 0 are on. Please stop lying about my guild. If you don't know then there is no need to make it up.

[slarden]

It is just stunning how different people's perspectives can be. You are worried about offering your members a good package, when tiny guilds are missing the thing I would find most important in a good guild, people to group with and talk to and get advice from. If I found myself in a guild like Slarden's where there was almost always no one but me and maybe one other person online, I would not care at all about ship buffs or even if they had a ship. My first and only question would be "When are we going to get more members?"


It is hard to relate when perspectives are that different.

Here we go again. The activity level of my guild is fine. We have a mix of people just as large guilds do.

Here is the thing, my guild is generating over 3x more renown/member than another large guild within 1 level of ours. However we have 14x more decay/member. The problem isn't the people in my guild or their activity levels, it is the fact that we have so much more renown taken away from us.

I don't find any unguilded members as I do my questing. Most people are in a guild and I only wish to add people as it is natural. I don't wish to do blind invites in korthos/harbor and never will. I think those folks are better off joining a start-up guild with new players. I have no intention of recruiting from other guilds because I believe its selfish to do so simply to raise my guild level. I am able to quest with people that aren't in my guild.

We need to get past this ridiculous notion that guilds must recruit. I think too much emphasis is put on growing guilds with this new system. Just let people play.

I have been beta-testing the new D&D MMO this weekend and really enjoying it. I don't need to worry about decay or recruiting - I can just play the game and have fun. I am not sure why Turbine can't people just play the game and have fun. Why do they want to suck all the fun out of the game with a decay mechanic.

[slarden]

You are perfectly right and sorry, my oversight. Well, let´s wait until Slarden endorses it and let´s wait for the reaction of smatt then...

Yes of course I support it. I previously proposed a similar idea except it was a formula that reduced decay for all guilds with less than 90 members to some degree while leaving the decay identical for guilds of 90+.

This actually reduces decay for tiny guilds more than I was proposing.

[slarden]

The problem:

Levels (and some perks attached to them) are the reason why someone will eventually complain about renown mechanics and balance. No matter how much the devs puzzle their minds to try to please everyone, it just won't happen because players tend to want everything the faster and easier the better, and of course they couldn't care less about other playstyles.



The (of course it's not perfect) solution:

Remove levels, decay and all that c**p. Make ships, shrines and crew members purchasable with astral diamonds and/or renown so you can p2w or pay just like you would do with plat, but with renown.

A very interesting system for me would be:

-- Renown is gained like we are used to, but some of it is kept by the char that earned it and the rest goes to a common renown pool. Let the proportion be selected and modified by the guild leader so when join a guild we accept that condition.
-- Ships have a common area for all guild members and a private room instanced per character. In the private room the "private" renown is spent in whichever shrine is wanted, in the common area only certain shrines previously selected by the leader can be placed, these are bought using the common renown pool.

This is thought to encourage all members to gain renown and create different guild models according to the % established. Let me give an example:

I discussed with my guild and found out that we can all benefit fron xp shrine and navigator, but some other shrines are controversial since divines want a +2 WIS shrine and a couple of rogues would love a +2 INT and there's no enough place for both. Thus I decide to keep only xp and navigator and forget about stats, keeping 30% of the gained renown to maintain the ship and those ammenities and save some renown for, let's say, a bigger ship.

My guildmates would be happy because they have their private room to place their favourite shrines and enough renown to buy them. I am happy too, because I know that if they want their own shrines they will have to earn renown, thus the guild will earn renown as well.



The complaints:

-- "I don't want Turbine to spend time on this!!! Fix the bugs FFS!!!! >.<" --

Indeed. It doesn't hurt to think creatively to find solutions for problems though :P

-- "I have an uber guild! I want to keep my high number to show everyone how cool I am!!! '¬¬" --

Awesome! Despite good guilds (usually) don't give a f**k about that number... Brag about belonging to it like people did before levels.

-- "What about size bonuses? Small guilds would get more net renown than big ones! UNFAIR!! :_(" --

Yep, potential WWIV if we consider this thread as WWIII. This would be tricky at such an abstract level but I'd probably remove bonuses but implement discounts related to the % of renown that guilds keep since it's natrural to keep a high percentage of renown, for instance, if we want to buy a new ship; since everybody is giving up to their personal cuota this must be rewarded with significant discounts! Of course this would work better because it would be CIRCUMSTANTIAL and as soon as you get what you want you can rethink your management with NO LOSS (this is key to avoid complaints).

-- "But... smalls guilds will need more time to get what big guilds can have faster... *sad panda*" --

Yes, a little, but JUST a little and for a FINITE time, not all the time like now. You can choose to make people contribute a lot and get it faster (via discounts and more net renown) or you can choose to make people contribute less and get it slower. Big guilds would be able to make people contribute less and get it a bit earlier but you STILL have a way to make it even faster than them with no real need to farm like crazy, just by agreeing it with you guildmates. Again, when you get what you want, you can keep your happy haunt as you please. There are options for all kinds, all have different trade-offs and benefits, but nobody is loosing at least.

-- "So your solution is not working at all!!!! We still have to think and decide what we want and the best way to get it... You liar! I want overall straightforward perfection! X-(" --

Perfection doesn't exist. Solving problems is a hell of a complex task when it involves human users. Even if you find a "perfect" solution, someone will come and break it in a way you didn't even thought it would be possible. It's important to minimize the flaws though, and the current system seems to me like a "I just want to shut up those guys that are complaining and go back to bed" solution, just plain arbitrary (been there, done that XD).

------------



PS: I'm in slarden's guild. I play almost everyday, sometimes several times a day, and I tend to grab renown anytime I can; same does my bf. I've seen other active accounts too. Believe me, decay is awful :/ It is also very unpolite to judge a group of people without even knowing them, just saying ^_^

Thank you very much for responding Great post and great ideas!

[Gremmlynn]

Also since the renown ransack increase was designed to limit too fast of advancement for large guilds, perhaps change ransack from level earned to total renown/day earned.

Well this is what should have been done from the beginning. If the level you were on at day start (when decay is paid) has 350k renown, the ransack timer starts on getting 350k renown, not the 200 renown that puts you at the next level.

The fact that it doesn't work this way just points to how the system was designed for guilds to get stuck.

[Gremmlynn]

Always remember: Putting up a LFM is not too much of work and not everybody can play in Superiority Complex on Wayfinder.

By the way, just for the rub: When was the last time i saw a Superiority Complex only Raid in The Shroud, full manned?

I would imagine if they were running a guild raid neither one of us would even know it was going on, much less how many are in the group. My experience with raids on our server generally begin with a tell asking if I'm interested.

Not much work putting up LFMs, no. It's just a very inefficient system on a low pop server. One /g hey anyone interested in XXX lets me know who wants in. LFMs count on players actually having the grouping menu open to see they are up, fewer people means fewer likely to even be doing that by the time the quests ends, much less starts. I'm not waiting 20+ mins for a group to form to run a 10 min quest, hell I am unlikely to spend 20 continuous minutes in public instances at anytime.

[Gremmlynn]

IMO no active members should be an auto-disband, regardless of level.

Why? Seems like a waste of time to even bother.

[Tshober]

See I don't see any sense in this as then you'll get complaints on the unfairness that solo 1-man guilds face. if they made the decay formula start at 1 and cap at 20, then all guilds outside of the guild of 1 gets a reduction in decay.

Doesn't instantly favor tiny guilds so I don't really see the issue.

It is extremely easy to make dummy accounts and invite them into your 1-man guild when new accounts are free. I think that is why they chose (10 + 10). It is very hard to tell a legitimate 6-account guild from a 1-man guild with 5 dummy accounts all run by the same guy. But I am only speculating. As far as I know the devs have never said why they set the min. guild size to 20 in the old decay formula.

[Tshober]

Why? Seems like a waste of time to even bother.

Well, for one thing it would give us a better set of statistics on how many real guilds there are in DDO.

[Gremmlynn]

Here we go again. The activity level of my guild is fine. We have a mix of people just as large guilds do.

Here is the thing, my guild is generating over 3x more renown/member than another large guild within 1 level of ours. However we have 14x more decay/member. The problem isn't the people in my guild or their activity levels, it is the fact that we have so much more renown taken away from us.

I don't find any unguilded members as I do my questing. Most people are in a guild and I only wish to add people as it is natural. I don't wish to do blind invites in korthos/harbor and never will. I think those folks are better off joining a start-up guild with new players. I have no intention of recruiting from other guilds because I believe its selfish to do so simply to raise my guild level. I am able to quest with people that aren't in my guild.

We need to get past this ridiculous notion that guilds must recruit. I think too much emphasis is put on growing guilds with this new system. Just let people play.

I have been beta-testing the new D&D MMO this weekend and really enjoying it. I don't need to worry about decay or recruiting - I can just play the game and have fun. I am not sure why Turbine can't people just play the game and have fun. Why do they want to suck all the fun out of the game with a decay mechanic.

I just play the game and have fun. The guild system only gets in the way of this if you let it. For me, everything I get from it is a bonus, not something I need, so I'm not going to let it get in the way of enjoying the game.

But don't listen to me as I'm an aberration. All of my characters are first life because TRing just seems like it would get in the way of fun. All my gear is not as good as it could be because grinding just seems like it would get in the way of fun and my level 50 guild is still using a level 25 ship because we like the design better. I just don't see why I should let avoidable factors get in the way of fun.

[Gremmlynn]

Well, for one thing it would give us a better set of statistics on how many real guilds there are in DDO.

What will general access to statistics help? The people who actually have the ability to change things already have access to those statistics. For the rest of us, exact numbers really aren't necessary for anything but winning peeing contests on these forums.