Guild Renown Changes

[UurlockYgmeov]

Under the new guild system Turbine reduced decay 93.5% for guilds of 300, 90% for guilds of 200, 80% for guilds of 100 and gave no reduction for guilds of 10 or less. I am happy for large guilds, but I would like to see the fixed account multipler of 20 (10 + 10) changed to 10 (10 + 0) so that all guilds can get a reduction in decay.

personally - would prefer to see fix account multiplier set to modified accounts - capped at say 30.

so a guild with 1 modified account would have a 1; whereas a guild with 30 or more modified accounts would have 30.

[slarden]

personally - would prefer to see fix account multiplier set to modified accounts - capped at say 30.

so a guild with 1 modified account would have a 1; whereas a guild with 30 or more modified accounts would have 30.

Yes that would work as well, but I would set the max account @ 20 so our friends in large guilds don't get an increase in decay over what they have now.

It would be great to see small guilds get some relief, but I don't want to see it get harder for anyone else.

Great idea. Unable to give you a +1 since I need to spread around reputation more first - otherwise I would give you another.

[Nestroy]

Also, since inactive or active players no longer add or detract to guild decay, inactive players can be now factored by comparing guilds of same level of differing size to show diminishing value (in terms of renown/player) as a guild grows in size.

You can then apply this model to current active players as a rough estimate of how much less activity you can reasonably expect from larger guilds to determine how much of a reduction in decay is resonable to assign to smaller guilds. I'm willing to admit that there IS a disparity that favors larger guilds, not quite as high as some people are making it out to be. Even the person, that worked out the math showing how larger guilds are favored, admitted there appears to be a drop off at higher numbers.

What would you guys think about percentage of total guild participation adding an extra renown boost? obviously smaller guilds would be easier to organize so would benefit most. 50% of members logged in a day = x bonus, 75% of members logged in a day = y bonus, 100% of members logged in a day = z bonus. Even a weekend player would find themselves logging in more frequently to say hi.

There will be one single problem with your idea, though: Now any guild going for max bonus will kick any player that is not online daily or will not be online for a certain period of time...

There are a few mends to this, though.

1.) Players can set themselfs inactive. They do not gain renown, but do not count against the active members during beeing inactive.
2.) Kicking players automatically bestows a 1 month active count for said player as a penalty.
3.) After one week of inactivity by any member every officer gets the right to set the member inanctive. Alternatively, anybody not online for 1 week gets set to inactive automatically.

Else your idea is good, albeit somewhat complex to implement.

[Chaos000]

There will be one single problem with your idea, though: Now any guild going for max bonus will kick any player that is not online daily or will not be online for a certain period of time...

I see your point. So let's take 100% off the table and limit it to 50% and 75%. Therefore 15-50% of the guild won't really need to be online for the extra bonus.

There would be a huge influx of purchases this year, but what about recurring revenues? Well guilds are always forming and some will want to buy these items. So there will continue to be recurring revenues. Some guilds will build up permanent buffs slowly so the revenue stream would continue. I believe it would be much higher than the current renown pot/rental money they are earning. It wouldn't take long for a finance person at Turbine to project the revenue change.

It's much like tomes, if the store rented tomes on a weekly basis they would sell some, but most people prefer to buy vs. rent so they would realize much less revenue renting them vs. selling them outright.

Not sure if monetizing with permanent purchases would be worth it for turbine. It's like the f2p model, once a player purchases all the classes and packs, they end up saving more money over the long run compared to players that pay month to month.

Allowing guilds to buy any (non-platinum cost) ship they want without restriction I think is a good idea.

All base buffs also, level restriction only on higher tier buffs.

Instead of gold seal amenities being permanent, allow for higher tier "gold seal" buffs to be unlocked with astral diamonds. They do expire but can be refreshed at the cost of platinum which is a bit more than level unlocked buffs.

Make buffs from gold seal amenities have no duration other than removed on death. Even if they expire, still worth it as a convenience item.

Upping the value of renown potions will help a lot too. Giving more value to a rental will net more revenue than making a rental item have a buyout. People "prefer" to buy permanent upgrades but the draw is to save themselves money in the long run. That's money out of turbine's pocket so I can't in good conscience advocate that if there's an alternative to gain more consistent revenue.

[UurlockYgmeov]

KIS ---- very important.

Keep it Simple.

Getting things over complicated and over-involved makes them:
hard to understand (personally I don't want to have to read more than a sentence; without any polysyllabic words);
hard to implement (if then else case if when do else dakine);
and hard to explain (the dakine because of the dakine is the dakine else the dakine is the dakine of the dakine when the dakine isn't a dakine).

Good intentions - but too complicated.

guild renown decay = static variable * modified accounts[capped at 20]

p.s. didn't include the second s because that is rude and it doesn't apply here

[slarden]

I see your point. So let's take 100% off the table and limit it to 50% and 75%. Therefore 15-50% of the guild won't really need to be online for the extra bonus.



Not sure if monetizing with permanent purchases would be worth it for turbine. It's like the f2p model, once a player purchases all the classes and packs, they end up saving more money over the long run compared to players that pay month to month.

Allowing guilds to buy any (non-platinum cost) ship they want without restriction I think is a good idea.

All base buffs also, level restriction only on higher tier buffs.

Instead of gold seal amenities being permanent, allow for higher tier "gold seal" buffs to be unlocked with astral diamonds. They do expire but can be refreshed at the cost of platinum which is a bit more than level unlocked buffs.

Make buffs from gold seal amenities have no duration other than removed on death. Even if they expire, still worth it as a convenience item.

Upping the value of renown potions will help a lot too. Giving more value to a rental will net more revenue than making a rental item have a buyout. People "prefer" to buy permanent upgrades but the draw is to save themselves money in the long run. That's money out of turbine's pocket so I can't in good conscience advocate that if there's an alternative to gain more consistent revenue.

Well it's really hard to say. The guilds past level 64 generally don't buy the gold seal shrines. Those in the 55-63 range may buy some. Very few people I encounter are using renown boosters. I think they can do a lot better and I believe selling permanent shrines/buffs would be one way to do it. I think people generally avoid renting so providing a purchase option could actually expand sales dramatically - especially with a significant convenience option attached to it. If they want a boost in revenues this year it would be a great way to do it. Long term I am doubting they will see a decline in revenue, but their finance folks could estimate that with a reasonable tolerance level to confirm.

[slarden]

KIS ---- very important.

Keep it Simple.

Getting things over complicated and over-involved makes them:
hard to understand (personally I don't want to have to read more than a sentence; without any polysyllabic words);
hard to implement (if then else case if when do else dakine);
and hard to explain (the dakine because of the dakine is the dakine else the dakine is the dakine of the dakine when the dakine isn't a dakine).

Good intentions - but too complicated.

guild renown decay = static variable * modified accounts[capped at 20]

p.s. didn't include the second s because that is rude and it doesn't apply here

Good point and this is basically what the developers asked for with suggestions. Something simple.

[Arnez]

While I am very happy and impressed with his success, unfortunately I am sure that played into many of the feelings people have towards tiny guilds, especially 6-person guilds. It may have even been a factor in this guild system change, but that is complete speculation.

I would think they would realize that for every 1 zonixx there are several hundred folks like these (from general discussion forum)

/Agreed
I did watch Zonixx when he streamed- hoping to pick up ideas for building renown faster during the Build Your Guild Event. In afterthought, it DID effect the way Large Guilds view those smaller than them.

I guess we're also casual gamers (12-15 hours per week, 2-3 per night) and a family guild at that. Interesting that some Large Guilds view us as "Not As Good As Them".

[Chaos000]

Well it's really hard to say. The guilds past level 64 generally don't buy the gold seal shrines. Those in the 55-63 range may buy some. Very few people I encounter are using renown boosters. I think they can do a lot better and I believe selling permanent shrines/buffs would be one way to do it. I think people generally avoid renting so providing a purchase option could actually expand sales dramatically - especially with a significant convenience option attached to it. If they want a boost in revenues this year it would be a great way to do it. Long term I am doubting they will see a decline in revenue, but their finance folks could estimate that with a reasonable tolerance level to confirm.

If the buffs from gold seal shrines are only eliminated on death, even guilds past level 64 will buy them (at the very least, the xp boost). If renown boosters had a higher value (example: instead of bonus percentage it’s a multiplier) a lot more people would purchase them. If the renown potions also stacked it’s effects, players would consider buying stacks of them next time a discount coupon is offered.

Increasing the value of the item rented will have players who generally stick with a purchase option to actually consider renting.

Selling permanent higher tier shrine/buff unlocks would also be an alternative. Just as desirable, while retaining the in-game platinum sink mechanic.

[Tshober]

If the buffs from gold seal shrines are only eliminated on death, even guilds past level 64 will buy them (at the very least, the xp boost).

I don't like the P2W smell of this idea, though we have been moving that direction for a long time already. If this were to be implemented, the way buff rental extensions work would have to be changed. Currently you can extend a plat rental with a gold seal rental and vice versa. That would have to stop working for this suggestion to make sense.

[Nestroy]

I don't like the P2W smell of this idea, though we have been moving that direction for a long time already. If this were to be implemented, the way buff rental extensions work would have to be changed. Currently you can extend a plat rental with a gold seal rental and vice versa. That would have to stop working for this suggestion to make sense.

Well, permanent means permanent, doesn´t it? When buying the best ship this isn´t that much of a problem, though.

I would retain the level / pot system on base that there always are those that want to level and brag about it. And then there would be a fine mechanics giving discounts on permanent buffs upon reaching a certain level...

Regarding P2W - DDO already is P2W, one way or the other. But I reall ywould love to see a boon handed to the VIPs by any new system. As of lately the VIPs got somewhat outdone by those that do p2w but it is the VIPs steady influx of money that pays most bills on a monthly base.

So for VIPs there either should be a possibilitiy to get discounts on permanent ammenities or something like automatical astral shards (a small amount would suffice) for their convenience...

[UurlockYgmeov]

this sounds like two different threads.... one about guild renown decay and the other about changes to guilds in general.

[Tshober]

this sounds like two different threads.... one about guild renown decay and the other about changes to guilds in general.

Since the devs have given us fewclues as to what they have in mind, that has naturally led to speculation. Some posters feel that Turbine is unlikely to further reduce decay without some kind of incentives for players to make more DDO store purchases. I, myself, do not necessarily believe that that to be the case, but some posters do so they are throwing out ideas for how that could be accomplished.

If the devs had given more direction for this discussion, it would have kept it more focused, but they did not really do that. So this is what we get.

[Zargarx]

Regarding the suggestion for the decay multiplier to be asjusted from 20 to min(20,active accounts):
1.End up again with guild size 13 quite a bit better than many larger guilds.
2. Inactive guilds don't decay.
3. Significant incentive returns for guilds size 7 to 20 to boot weak active members when high decay occurs.

The option to lower multipliers to fix these issue is not a great one as it mostly will hurt guilds at lower levels where decay isn't a significant issue.

My suggestion to address the 3 issues is to change the formula to min(20,active accounts + 5)
Also increase the active boot to 50% renown loss.

[UurlockYgmeov]

KIS ---- very important.

Keep it Simple.

Getting things over complicated and over-involved makes them:
hard to understand (personally I don't want to have to read more than a sentence; without any polysyllabic words);
hard to implement (if then else case if when do else dakine);
and hard to explain (the dakine because of the dakine is the dakine else the dakine is the dakine of the dakine when the dakine isn't a dakine).

Good intentions - but too complicated.

guild renown decay = static variable * modified accounts[capped at 20]

p.s. didn't include the second s because that is rude and it doesn't apply here

with last post in mind -

guild renown decay = static variable * modified accounts[capped at 20][min 1]

[Vanshilar]

I think one of the most interesting things about this thread is how the arguments that large guilds are now putting forth -- that small guilds just need to be more active to overcome decay, that there's a purpose to decay so it shouldn't be removed, that small guilds should just accept that there are tradeoffs to their guild size and not everyone is meant to reach level 100, that small guilds just have a sense of entitlement, that small guilds just want free stuff without working for it, etc., etc., -- were all arguments that previously applied to the large guilds themselves under the original system prior to the renown decay change. And now that most large guilds can coast to level 100 just by sheer size and not have to worry about those issues, they suddenly agree with those arguments since they now only apply to other guilds. In fact, many of those arguments that the large guilds are now offering actually apply equally well for returning to the original renown decay formula.

I guess people from many of the guilds that complained about renown decay actually agree with the original vision for the decay aspect of the system as it was implemented, just as long as they're not personally affected in any appreciable amount by it, such as with the current changes.

Let's look at some of the arguments:

The renown system should reward activity
I've said this since day one -- that the key to gaining guild levels in the long run is to maximize gains (encourage fellow players to play), not to minimize losses (remove players that don't log on as often).

Yet previously, what argument did we hear for why renown decay had to be lessened? Because the only option these guild leaders had to continue leveling was to remove less active people from the guild, since they're all working very hard and there's no way they could possibly make the guild more active. Even when I said that they should encourage players to play more instead, and gave Over Raided's strategy as an example, they scoffed at this and said that it was impossible. I invite Turbine to look through the previous renown threads to see this argument in abundance.

Incidentally I also previously showed that the average member of the top renown small guilds was collecting several times the amount of base renown as the average member of the top renown large guilds, yet it was the large guilds that were complaining about how they were working very hard and blaming decay for not advancing. But more on this later.

In response to why small guilds level so slowly, these guilds are now saying that the small guilds just need to be more active -- that if those small guilds would simply shut up and stop complaining and play the game instead of posting on the forums, they would level up just like the big guilds are.

But this ignores how the renown system works. Unlike most of the other incentive systems in the game, renown gain scales quadratically with the number of members, as opposed to linearly. For example, if 3 people finish a quest with 2 chests, then there are a total of 6 "chest-pulls" i.e. loot generation rolls as each person clicks on each chest. If 6 people finish the same quests, then there are a total of 12 chest-pulls. So the number of chest-pulls increases linearly with the number of members in the group, but since the number of members who are splitting those benefits also increase, it balances out; each member still gets the benefit of 2 chests. Of course, people could pass their loot to others, but that means the giver isn't getting the benefit of his loot -- the average benefit (chest-pulls per person) stays the same.

Renown is different. When someone in a guild gets a renown token, the benefit of that token's renown gets spread to everyone in the guild, rather than just that person (as is usually the case). So if 3 guild members loot 2 chests with renown, there are 6 renown tokens, but each of the 3 members gets the benefit of all 6 renown tokens, for a total of 18 renown benefits given out. Similarly, if 6 guild members loot the same 2 chests, each of the 6 guild members gets the benefit of all 12 renown tokens, for a total of 72 renown benefits given out. By doubling the number of members, the benefits given out has actually quadrupled.

This is equivalent to saying that if a quest gave 2 chests of loot for a 3-member party, then it would drop 4 chests of loot for a 6-member party. The loot mechanic obviously doesn't work this way, and for good reason -- but this is how the renown system works, by the nature of adding all the members' gains into a single pot, and then giving out benefits based on the total accrued in that pot.

Renown decay (once guilds leveled up to where it mattered, anyway), by scaling with the number of members, was what kept this inherently unbalanced system in balance. Thus small guilds were characterized by small gain and small loss, while large guilds were characterized by large gain and large loss. But because it reduced the quadratic system back to a linear system, a guild's level, once it settled down to equilibrium, reflected that guild's activity level -- how much the average member was playing and getting renown. In short, the original system rewarded being active, which is precisely what these guilds are now saying to small guilds that are having trouble leveling up, now that these guilds don't have to worry about being active.

With the change to renown decay, small guilds are still characterized by small gain and small loss, but large guilds are now characterized by large gain and small loss. Thus large guilds are no longer encumbered by decay and will easily level up, while small guilds still continue to be held in check by renown decay and will not reach the higher levels unless they are among the most active of players. This is in direct contradiction to Turbine's stance that the guild system should not promote any particular guild size, yet there's been little word after nearly 4 months about how they will remedy this situation.

The change was a slap in the face to the vast majority of players that prefer to be in smaller guilds, especially since the original system already favored large guilds due to how renown gain worked; this change has simply swung the pendulum even further in the wrong direction rather than bringing it into balance.

Under the original system (as with the current system), in order to get to the mid-high levels, you have to gain large total amounts of renown. Because renown decay is virtually non-existent until you reach those mid-high levels, and renown level is based on the sum total of renown gained by all members, the system effectively simply rewarded having more members. Even the original system was directly contradicting Turbine's stance of not promoting any particular guild size, by sending the message that to gain the best benefits of the system, you had to be in an extremely active guild -- or just join any large guild of any level of activity.

The obvious rejoinder is "but isn't there a guild size bonus?" and the answer is, yes there is. But the way the bonus worked, if the guild recruited similar players, it would always have more renown gain. In fact, this has been true for over two years since Update 7, which I wrote about here. A guild's renown gaining potential based on the number of players looks like this:



Note that the graph is always increasing. Even though large guilds like to point out that members of a 6-account guild get a whopping +300% bonus (so each legendary trophy they pick up nets 4000 renown instead of 1000 renown), they rarely if ever acknowledge that this just means the 6-account guild levels up as if it had 24 accounts. Meanwhile a 100-account guild levels up as if it had 100 accounts, so it would gain levels over 4 times faster. So if it took a 100-account half a year to reach level 60, it would take a similar 6-account guild two years to also reach level 60, even with that bonus -- and of course, a 200-account guild would only need 3 months.

Equivalently, Turbine was saying that you could join a 100-account guild and get level 60 benefits after pulling 108 legendaries on average, or join a 6-account guild and get level 60 benefits after pulling 450 legendaries on average, over 4 times more. By being in a smaller guild, each member had to put more effort into renown to get the same benefits.

It's not as if this were a new point. When the guild size bonus was released about a month after the renown system was introduced, large guilds were already complaining about how the bonus made things unfair, and people were already explaining that large guilds still level faster if they were being similarly active; for example, see here. Note that back then, renown decay was not yet a factor since guilds hadn't leveled up that high yet, and the system was still all about maximizing renown gain without having to worry about decay. Yet two and a half years later, people are still trying to make the same point in this thread, that small guilds get a bonus so it's all hunky-dory, ignorant (or hoping people would be ignorant) of it hardly making up for the huge renown gain disparity that large guilds get just by being big.

To a certain extent, small guilds can make up for this disparity by being more active. But how active is, of course, something that large guilds never like to examine, and just point out that there exists small guilds at the very high levels -- so you just need to be as active as they are!

The fact of the matter is that for small guilds to get up to the high levels in any meaningful amount of time, they had to work several times harder than large guilds to be at similar levels -- in fact, they had to be among the most active guilds in the game. Previously, I had stated that the most active large guilds were gaining around 1000-1700 base renown per member per day (with one exception at 2200), while the most active small guilds were gaining around 2500-6000 base renown per member per day -- just to be at similar levels. (The method for doing so is described here, here, although the graph is a bit difficult to interpret. An example is it shows if you believe Wanderlust to have between 14 and 50 accounts, which was almost certainly the case, then they were getting about 4.1 legendaries per member on average each day.) So the average member in a large guild was getting the equivalent of around 1.0 to 1.7 legendaries each day (with one at 2.2 legendaries), while the average member of a small guild, just to also keep up, were having to get around 2.5 legendaries to 6.0 legendaries each day -- in effect, working several times harder at renown just be at similar levels and get similar benefits.

That's why even before the change to renown decay was made, 58% (30 out of 52) of active guilds with 501 or more characters had already reached level 70. Meanwhile, only 2% (340 out of 17155) of active guilds with 150 or less characters had reached level 70. (The data was as of Oct 1, 2012; the change to renown decay was made on Oct 22, 2012.) So in other words, if you were among the most active 2% of small guilds you could reach level 70; by contrast, the majority of large guilds had already reached it -- and it was those large guilds screaming bloody murder about how the renown system disfavored them. Even 87% (45 out of 52) of active large guilds had already reached level 60, while only 4.2% (713 out of 17155) of active small guilds had also reached level 60. Large guilds who blithely say "well you just need to be more active" never answer 1) why should it be that only the most active of small guilds should get those benefits that most large guilds can take for granted and 2) why large guilds shouldn't need to worry about activity just by being big -- and this is even before the renown decay change which further increased the benefits of being in a large guild.

Purpose of renown decay and not everyone is supposed to make level 100
I find it funny that large guilds who were previously making threads saying that renown decay serves absolutely no purpose so it should be removed (or belligerently telling other people "why are YOU so against other guilds leveling up?") are now busy telling small guilds that decay serves a purpose so it shouldn't be removed, now that it's crippling to small guilds but large guilds aren't appreciably affected by it. I invite Turbine to take a cursory look at previous renown threads to see this sudden change of heart, and note that in fact, this also applied under the original system.

I had discussed the purpose of renown decay here, among other places. I think one of the previous posters in this and other threads made a very insightful comment, that guild levels really serve as a rating (i.e. a score that could increase or decrease over time, such as a credit rating) rather than just a level (which implies always stagnant or increasing, but not decreasing). (Sorry, not looking over all 2k+ posts in this thread to find it again.) By the original structure of the system, a guild's level largely served as a marker for how large a guild was (since it just took size to level up), or how active a guild was (since, absent size, the only way to level up would be to be very active), and also how long the guild has been around (since it takes time to reach the mid-high levels).

Thus the original complaints about how renown decay was making large guilds lose members to other guilds were confusing at best. For a large guild, if the recipient guild had a higher level because of renown decay, it implies that the players of the new guild were more active, and thus, the player was looking for a more engaging environment. (It could also mean that the recipient guild has been around longer, but for large guilds which were settling into their equilibrium level, how long it's been around doesn't particularly matter for guild level.) If the recipient guild were a small guild, then the argument was doubly confusing, because small guilds had to be much more active than large guilds to reach similar levels -- in effect, the player was looking for a guild that was really active which the original guild leadership wasn't providing.

Saying that this was making large guilds remove less-active members was even more confusing. If players are leaving a guild because they want a more active environment, then the best response would be to make the guild more active by having more guild events, raids, etc., not by removing less-active players and having fewer people to interact with. The players wanted to be engaged more, and removing other players doesn't help them with this.

This is not the case for small guilds. Because the renown system so heavily favors size, a small guild could be very active and yet still lose members to large guilds. As mentioned above, since previously 58% of active large guilds had reached level 70 while only the most active 2% of active small guilds had also reached it, it also meant that members of the 98% of small guilds who had not reached level 70 were ripe targets for the 58% of large guilds that had, if those members were only concerned about guild level. Those members could easily gain 30-50 levels of guild benefits if they changed guilds to a large guild. So this argument actually works in the opposite way than intended -- under the previous system, guild levels actually encouraged people to join large guilds since it was enormously easier to level up in them, and the change to renown decay has shifted this incentive to be even stronger. Yet it was the large guilds complaining about losing members to other guilds, and are now telling small guilds "no, no, this doesn't really happen."

It's also interesting that some people are now telling small guilds "well if players leave your guild for a (higher-level) large guild then maybe they just didn't really want to be in your guild in the first place" when we were previously subjected to post after post of large guilds complaining about how people were switching guilds due to renown decay, as a reason to change it. Again, I invite Turbine to take a cursory look through previous renown threads to verify this.

The other major reason brought up for the renown decay change was that it was encouraging people to exclude others. The way this argument worked was that guilds may not want to bring someone on board in case that player ended up gaining less renown than they cost in decay, resulting in a net negative in renown for the guild, and giving guilds an incentive to trim its roster. But this ignores the many other facets of the game where bringing in someone could result in a net negative:

1. The decreasing guild size bonus: Above 6 accounts, the amount of bonus a guild gets due to its size decreases, finally reaching 0 at 50 accounts. What this means is that if an additional member joins, he decreases the bonus for everybody else, so the guild had better ensure that the new member brings in at least enough to cover this reduced bonus or it results in a net negative for the guild.

The amount the new member would have to bring in is significant. If a 10-member guild typically gets 1 legendary per member per day (so 1000 base renown per member per day), it would gain 34000 renown without considering any renown decay, due to the +240% or 3.4x guild size bonus. If the guild added an additional member, the bonus decreases to +225% or 3.25x guild size bonus, so the original members would gain 32500 renown. Thus the new member would need to gain (34000-32500)/3.25 = 462 base renown to make up for everybody else getting less, or 46.2% of what the original members got on average.

This amount goes up to 90% of the average original member for a 15-account guild, and gradually decreases to 70.6% for a 49-account guild. So for many small guilds, taking on an additional member leads to a significant risk of less overall renown gain. This risk is present as long as the bonus decreases with more guild members, so the only way for this to not exist is if the bonus were constant (at which point, it's not really a bonus), or if the guild increases its membership to 50 or more accounts. Of course, the large guilds are happily suggesting just mass inducting until small guilds reach that many accounts, but a 50-account or more guild has wildly different guild dynamics and culture than a small 5- or 20-account guild -- so the large guilds are essentially saying that small guilds "just" need to destroy the close-knit atmosphere and culture of the guild to not have to worry about this.

2. Dungeon scaling. For most quests, an additional member in the group means that the monsters will have more HP, do more damage, etc. This means the group has to be confident that the additional person will benefit the group more than how much the monsters become more difficult to overcome.

3. Death/reentry bonus. There is a 10% XP bonus for no deaths during the completion of a quest, and a 10% XP bonus for no reentries as well. This means that the group should be sure that the additional member will not die, and will not choose to recall and re-enter the quest when the party encounters a difficulty, or they run the risk of losing out on the bonus XP.

4. Level penalty. A new group member which is over level for a quest can result in a level penalty on XP for everyone, a powerlevel penalty for any members that are 4 or more levels below the new group member, cancelling a bravery streak if it was applying to the quest, end slayer kills in the wilderness, and so forth. Only accepting members that were within the desired level range is not a foolproof method against this, since the new member may join the group, then level up, and then join the quest. (I've personally had this happen before.)

5. Dungeon alert. A new group member may result in the group becoming more fragmented and splitting up (especially if they're not familiar with the quest and wander into places that the group hasn't been to yet), causing enough monsters to be activated to trigger dungeon alert, making them more difficult to kill and the quest harder to complete.

6. Quest objectives. Quests have specific objectives that need to be completed in a specific way in order for the party to complete the quest and get XP and loot. This means that an additional party member is beneficial only if they aid in fulfilling those objectives -- but run the risk of making things more difficult if they detract from them.

Examples include blocking people's view in Abbot roids, inappropriately getting shadow aggro in ToD part 2, killing a lieutenant prematurely in Shroud part 2, breaking a crystal in Shroud part 3 (which means everyone misses out on 2 chests), randomly turning those dials in Reaver's Fate, killing djinn/pillars at the wrong time in VoN6, killing the last assassin prematurely at the end of LoB, or killing portal keepers at the wrong time in CitW.

This isn't limited to high-level quests either. Low-level examples include messing up the puzzle in Storehouse's Secret or activating the sahuagin fight prematurely in Redemption -- some of the earliest quests that players will encounter. In fact, DDO is replete with examples at all levels where it is very easy for an additional member to screw up the quest objectives and thus make it more difficult to complete the quest. But we certainly don't see people say that the crystal mechanic in Shroud part 3 is making them murder their close personal friends, unlike with renown decay.

7. Quest difficulty. By this I don't mean Normal/Hard/Elite. I mean that quests require a certain level of quest-specific knowledge, character build and gear, and player execution ability to complete. While normal Shroud nowadays may just be "take the first 11 that apply and go", a group that is interested in completing say EE LoB or EE CitW may want to screen applicants, because the quest itself will essentially require enough of the above components -- and setting up the raid to complete takes sufficiently long that the group won't want to keep redoing it because someone keeps killing portal keepers or whatever. By making some quests difficult to complete, Turbine is encouraging players to exclude other players who aren't familiar enough with the quest and/or hasn't built up their character for them.

In short, almost all aspects of the game has elements where an additional person may be a liability. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. An aspect of many incentive systems is to give better rewards for more effort, and for an MMO, this type of system is what spurs interactions and relationships as a player's ability develops through talking and playing with other people. This in turn makes the player more invested in the game and more interested in playing, which means $$$ for Turbine but also, converts a possible liability into an actual benefit for others that interact with the player.

In the same way quests became more difficult as a character leveled up, renown decay made advancing more difficult as guilds leveled up. Thus more reward for more effort was preserved. Decay scaling by the number of accounts in a guild -- to match the guild having more earning potential with more members due to the sum nature of renown gain -- was a critical aspect of this.

By removing decay scaling with number of accounts, there is now little incentive from the renown system for any guild with 50 or more accounts to invest in their players. Since any additional accounts can only be a net positive and not a net negative, there is no need to interact with players to turn them from potential liabilities into actual assets. Even if the player makes a lot of fuss and leaves the guild on bad terms (or is booted), the guild keeps 75% of the renown the player gained, and the guild lost nothing in terms of decay (and the booted player loses out on all guild benefits with little recourse). Such guilds can freely recruit anybody and everybody without having to worry about the system. With the number of unguilded characters running around, and the 98% of all other guilded characters at a lower level, it's easy enough to attract and induct whomever and boot as the guild leadership pleases for guaranteed renown gain. (This is not true for guilds with 49 accounts or less due to the decreasing size bonus -- so they still have to be watchful lest their overall renown gain decreases.)

As an aside, renown decay by itself actually favors large guilds, because it adds 10 to however many accounts the guild has, and all guilds are also considered to have at least 10 accounts for decay purposes. So a 6-account guild takes decay as if it were a 20-account guild (so each member has to make up for 3.3x decay), a 20-account guild takes decay as if it were a 30-account guild (so each member has to make up for 1.5x decay), while a 200-account guild takes decay as if it were a 210-account guild 9so each member only has to make up 1.05x decay). Decay actually penalizes small guilds -- it's just that, within a certain band, at the higher levels the guild size bonus may be greater than this penalty.

For the "inclusive not exclusive" crowd, it's not at all clear how being blindly inclusive is beneficial to the game. Being recruited into a guild won't attract a player very much to the game (other than perhaps free buffs -- but then they just become part of the assumed background benefits as part of the game) if the guild does not take any other steps to involve the player. As I stated earlier (and to my knowledge no one has tried to refute in the 1000 or so posts since I previously posted):

I can log on to a small guild and half the players online will say "hi". I can log on to a large guild for an entire day and nobody will bother to talk to me.

With the change to renown decay, there is now even less incentive for interaction once a guild has 50 or more accounts. As I said before, it's great for guild leadership, since they have a large supply of people giving them renown "for free" without them having to put effort into it other than /guild recruit (and /guild expel whenever they want regardless of the player's desires), so it's unsurprising that a lot of those people have showed up in this thread to troll anyone that criticizes the current system, and continue to do despite Turbine's warning. But it does very little to the individual player in such a guild that's not part of the "in" crowd.

Sense of entitlement and wanting free stuff
This has to be one of the most baffling arguments presented in this thread, especially considering the source.

Large guilds were previously claiming that the renown system benefited small guilds, and their "evidence" was that they were no longer on the first page of guilds by renown according to the MyDDO leaderboards -- that the first page was full of small/medium guilds.

This was fundamentally a case of confusion of the inverse -- simply stated, "because A tends to be B, therefore, B tends to be A". In this case, the argument went, high-level guilds tended to be small, therefore, small guilds tend to be high-level, ergo, the system was favoring small guilds.

The problem is that there are literally hundreds of active small guilds for every active large guild, so at any level there should be more small guilds (and that is the crux of the confusion). But more importantly, at the bottom end of the renown leaderboards there are literally hundreds of pages of small guilds with not a single large guild in sight. For most servers, you'd have to go through thousands of active small guilds at the lower end before you find the first active large guild (Wayfinder being the obvious exception). Yet large guilds were complaining about not being within the top 25 on their server, and blaming the system for it. It is difficult to come up with an even more egregious example of sense of entitlement.

Also, I could show that those small guilds that did make it to the top levels did so because they were working much harder than any of the large guilds at renown. As an example, I previously documented that Over Raided averaged 4367 base renown per member per day to reach level 100 within a year -- so that means the average member in Over Raided was getting about 4.4 legendaries a day. As I also calculated in that post, if a 100-account guild had also wanted to hit level 100 within a year, they would've needed to gain 3834 base renown per account per day -- or about 3.8 legendaries, or 88% of our level of effort. For a 200-account guild, it would've been 3488 base renown, or 80% of our level of effort.

Similarly, our level 1-to-85 averaged 4485 base renown per account per day. A large 100-account guild would've only needed 2379 to reach level 85 at the same time as us, or 53% of our level of effort. A 200-account guild would've only needed 1700, or 38% of our level of effort. In other words, if a 100-account guild were working about half as hard as we were, we would've been neck-and-neck to be first at level 85. If a 200-account guild were working about one third as hard as we were, it would've been a close race to level 85. If a 100-account guild had been working as hard as we were, they would've absolutely crushed us at renown; this hypothetical guild would've reached level 100 after about 7 months, when we were still level 86. And this is with decay as it originally was.

Almost all of the small guilds at the top of the leaderboards had renown gain similar to ours. In fact at times they were more active, hence the earlier quoted figure of 2500-6000 -- when I did my month-to-month analysis, some guilds actually averaged 6 legendaries per account per day for that month. It's just that Over Raided had the highest sustained amount over the course of the year, to reach level 100 first. And as stated previously, the top renown large guilds were in the range of only 1000-1700, with a single exception at 2200.

It's against this backdrop that large guilds were complaining about renown decay, claiming that it was unfair because they were slowed down by it while the small guilds near their levels were continuing to level due to lower decay. In reality, to reach similar levels as the large guilds in the first place, the small guilds had to work much harder, gaining much more renown per account, and thus decay formed a smaller proportion of their overall renown gain.

Part of the reason why this misconception formed is that when the renown system was first released, the best strategy to leveling for large guilds was just to induct everyone you saw, since there was no decay (as everyone was still at the lower levels). Without any incentive to invest in their players, such guilds could simply sort the character list by last login and just boot the ones at the bottom to make space for new recruits. Some guilds even explicitly had in their MotD "You will be booted if you don't log in for 4 days." You may think that's fairly callous to new players, but those were among the fastest-leveling guilds in the game. In a system that rewards quantity above all else, this is the natural outcome. Once a guild reached a certain size, it would naturally get to the mid-high levels just on size alone.

After decay started kicking in, however, large guilds that did not engage their players had rapid growth but stopped leveling relatively abruptly, perhaps in the 50s-60s. Large guilds that engaged their players tended to reach the 80s.

None of the large guilds, however, ever engaged their members to the same extent that the small guilds they compared themselves to did -- to the 2500-6000 level of effort that would be needed to reach the highest levels. And fundamentally, this is why some small guilds were able to persevere and eventually reach the 90s and some, to 100. Because they worked harder for it.

And now, of course, large guilds are telling small guilds that "all they have to do" is have the same sort of activity levels as the most active small guilds, even though they are getting those benefits without ever having reached those activity levels themselves, nor have ever presented a reason why they shouldn't need those activity levels for those benefits (following the more effort-more reward model). Yet Turbine's change has done precisely this -- and as Turbine can easily see in this thread, it is members of large guilds claiming that others just want free stuff.


The history of the renown system has been marked by large guilds uniformly able to reach the mid-high levels, the levels where Fernando Paiz says is supposed to more about "bragging rights" than anything else (in other words, difficult to reach but offers less-important rewards), while only the most hard-working and active small guilds are able to reach those levels, with the vast majority of small guilds still stuck at the "renown gain wall" -- unable to surmount the large renown totals needed to level up. If we look at just the guilds that:

1) Were active in August 2010, a few months after the renown system was released (specifically, whose renown changed from August 6 to August 27, since MyDDO stopped working after that)
2) Were still active at the time I did each month's month-to-month analysis

Then the guild count, as an animated gif, is below:



Note that the left axis values are for active small guilds, while the right axis values are for both active medium and active large guilds. Yes, there really are that many small guilds that are active and playing -- and have been around since August 2010.

As you can see, guilds that were active in August 2010, if they are large guilds, have already moved to the mid-high levels. In fact, the lowest large guild is level 52. Put another way, if a guild were active in August 2010, are still active now, and have 501 or more characters, it is guaranteed to be at level 52 or above now. All 52 such large guilds are now level 52 or higher (as of Feb 1, 2013).

By contrast, only the top 800 out of 3527 (22.7%) of small guilds that were active in August 2010 and are still active now, have reached level 52 or higher.

Also, 26 out of 52 (50%) of those active old large guilds are currently level 79 or higher. In other words, level 79 is basically the median level for large guilds that have been around since August 2010. By contrast, only 96 out of 3527 (2.72%) of those active old small guilds have reached level 79 or higher.

The animated gif shows how large guilds have been able to level up pretty easily, but most small guilds are still stuck at the lower levels -- even if they've been around for years. There's a thin sliver of small guilds that are at similar levels to large guilds, and it's just about always those guilds that large guilds point to in justifying their position -- ignoring the huge mass of small guilds below them. You can also see just how slow small guilds level in general, while the movement of large (and medium) guilds is fairly evident.

If we now look at the average, it looks like this:

Month	Small	Medium	Large
4/2011	23.79	49.77	62.65
5/2011	24.59	50.97	62.81
6/2011	25.49	53.26	62.69
7/2011	26.25	54.76	63.77
8/2011	27.23	56.36	64.65
9/2011	28.27	57.87	65.35
10/2011	28.70	57.99	65.53
11/2011	29.40	59.10	66.47
12/2011	30.50	61.22	66.96
1/2012	31.22	61.62	68.11
2/2012	31.92	62.49	68.72
3/2012	31.47	64.12	69.95
4/2012	32.49	64.76	69.66
5/2012	33.48	65.90	70.91
6/2012	33.22	66.45	72.82
7/2012	33.22	67.55	72.04
8/2012	34.16	67.71	71.77
9/2012	35.20	67.79	72.34
10/2012	36.20	68.26	71.87
11/2012	36.51	70.34	73.23
12/2012	36.59	70.00	75.52
1/2013	36.93	71.88	77.21

Since the change to decay, large guilds have profited handsomely, since the change benefited them the most. Most other guilds have not changed appreciably, however, although it does decrease the decay for all guilds with 11 or more accounts. Small guilds in particularly are bound by low amounts of growth simply due to how much renown is needed to level and the lack of manpower to do so.

One thing to note is that the average level of large guilds increased significantly in May and June 2012, followed by a decline. This is due to the Build your Guild event, which propelled many large guilds beyond their equilibrium, i.e. the levels where their gain matched their decay. Once the event was over, large guilds naturally started settling back down to their equilibrium. I invite Turbine to look at when renown decay threads started in abundance. It is easy to see that many started just after this time frame. In other words, players were against a temporary benefit being taken away. This actually implies that Turbine shouldn't have such events, due to the backlash when they end. Rather than see the increased guild levels as a temporary bonus, some players felt they were entitled to them without additional effort -- and then complained about no longer getting them for months after the event, until Turbine changed the system. Once again, it is difficult to come up with an even more egregious example of sense of entitlement and wanting "free stuff".

I think the guild renown system should be a system where guilds of all sizes are equally rewarded. There shouldn't be such a difference when looking at guilds of different sizes. However, there is. The guild system was previously benefiting guilds of larger size the most, and the change benefited large guilds even further, while ignoring the majority of players that prefer to be in small, close-knit guilds. This does Turbine's players a disservice, and the disparity increases with each passing day.

[Chaos000]

And now that most large guilds can coast to level 100 just by sheer size and not have to worry about those issues

When you say "most", how large do large guilds have to be before they are "coasting to level 100 by sheer size"?

I appreciate your work however it does need to factor in how increase renown gathering potential doesn't directly result in a higher renown gain. Because guild size no longer adds or detracts to the guild's decay, inactive accounts are now in essence factored into a guild's true size. In terms of "potential" even an old guild mate that has not logged in over a year (inactive) could one day decide to log in and gain renown. Their level of activity or lack thereof is still "potential". Unrealized potential for sure but still potential.

The reality is, when taking inactive + active guilds into account, guilds of lower renown gathering potential will hands down exceed guilds of higher renown gain potential. It's the nature of active players preferring quality over quantity.

[Tshober]

In fact, many of those arguments that the large guilds are now offering actually apply equally well for returning to the original renown decay formula.

While a few posters who may or may not have come from large guilds have made the argument that small guilds just need to be more active, most people from large guilds have not. Almost every poster from large guilds, myself included, has stated clearly and unequivically that they would prefer to see decay further reduced or eliminated entirely to help out tiny guilds that got no benefit from the initial decay reduction.

I think the guild renown system should be a system where guilds of all sizes are equally rewarded. There shouldn't be such a difference when looking at guilds of different sizes. However, there is. The guild system was previously benefiting guilds of larger size the most, and the change benefited large guilds even further, while ignoring the majority of players that prefer to be in small, close-knit guilds. This does Turbine's players a disservice, and the disparity increases with each passing day.

Your main argument (at least the one you spend 80% of your incredibly long post on) is that large guilds are able to level faster than small guilds. You see this as unfair or at least bad in some way. First, under the current decay formula, guilds that are larger do NOT necessarily level faster than smaller guilds. What really happens is guilds that earn more renown level faster than guilds that earn less renown. If a smaller guild is more active and earns more renown per day than a larger guild, the smaller guild will level faster. It is true that larger guilds do have an advantage in that they can potentially have more players actively earning renown at once. But total guild activity - measured by total guild renown earned - trumps guild size every time.

You are the one who feels entitled. Essentially, you advocate penalizing members of larger guilds for being in larger guilds. You want to see their renown that they earn taxed heavily because they are in a large guild but you do not want your renown taxed as heavily because you are in a small or tiny guild. The renown earned by every player in DDO should count as much as the renown earned by every other player in DDO. They earned it and they should keep it. Moreover, they earned it for their guild and their guild should keep it. The guild that earns the most renown per day - DDO's measure of activity - should level the fastest and that is exactly what we have today for the most part. The only exception we have today is for tiny guilds with under 10 players who are still paying the legacy decay penalty from the old decay system, which I argue should aslo be eliminated.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I think one of the most interesting things about this thread is how the arguments that large guilds are now putting forth -- that small guilds just need to be more active to overcome decay, that there's a purpose to decay so it shouldn't be removed, that small guilds should just accept that there are tradeoffs to their guild size and not everyone is meant to reach level 100, that small guilds just have a sense of entitlement, that small guilds just want free stuff without working for it, etc., etc., -- were all arguments that previously applied to the large guilds themselves under the original system prior to the renown decay change. And now that most large guilds can coast to level 100 just by sheer size and not have to worry about those issues, they suddenly agree with those arguments since they now only apply to other guilds. In fact, many of those arguments that the large guilds are now offering actually apply equally well for returning to the original renown decay formula.

...

Once again, it is difficult to come up with an even more egregious example of sense of entitlement and wanting "free stuff".

I think the guild renown system should be a system where guilds of all sizes are equally rewarded. There shouldn't be such a difference when looking at guilds of different sizes. However, there is. The guild system was previously benefiting guilds of larger size the most, and the change benefited large guilds even further, while ignoring the majority of players that prefer to be in small, close-knit guilds. This does Turbine's players a disservice, and the disparity increases with each passing day.

well thought out and presented statement that is well documented and well supported with statistics and empirical evidence.

bravo!

because of this post I will spend some time and rethink my stance. I fully support your message and +1!

essentially - time to make guild renown NOT about the size of the guild but rather about how active it really is. Time to actually improve the guild system itself.

[Impaqt]

I think one of the most interesting things about this thread is how the arguments that large guilds are now putting forth -- that small guilds just need to be more active to overcome decay, that there's a purpose to decay so it shouldn't be removed, that small guilds should just accept that there are tradeoffs to their guild size and not everyone is meant to reach level 100, that small guilds just have a sense of entitlement, that small guilds just want free stuff without working for it, etc., etc., -- were all arguments that previously applied to the large guilds themselves under the original system prior to the renown decay change. And now that most large guilds can coast to level 100 just by sheer size and not have to worry about those issues, they suddenly agree with those arguments since they now only apply to other guilds. In fact, many of those arguments that the large guilds are now offering actually apply equally well for returning to the original renown decay formula.

You are mistaken.

Before the change, a few "Small guild" supporters would tell me and my friends in the large guilds that we should just boot all the folks that dont pull their weight in renown.

Now that decay has been reduced dramatically for large guilds, we are happy. but I simply do not see many folks rubbing it in the face of small guilds and saying just recruit more players. again. It is a very small amount of people....