Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

this really hurts me since i am the only person in my guild if i dont play more then 4 hours everyday i cant keep up with the decay not good DDO a VIP player gets shafted for having a guild of one

The ransack effect for renown loot does need to be fixed. Several good suggestions have been made for that have been made. One is to have the ransack not trigger until the 2nd level up in a day is hit, then phase it in more agressively.

You chose to go it alone in a solo guild and I think you should be able to do that and that you should be able to eventually level up too. But I don't think you should expect to be able to level up as fast as a guild with hundreds of players all working together.

[tasslehofff]

You chose to go it alone in a solo guild and I think you should be able to do that and that you should be able to eventually level up too. But I don't think you should expect to be able to level up as fast as a guild with hundreds of players all working together.[/QUOTE]

my guild level is 67 atm and it really hard to keep up with decay i play everyday and not getting anywere since they changed it someday i break even some days i lose fewer days i make more then decay and i take renown as most end rewards just to keep up

[Tshober]

my guild level is 67 atm and it really hard to keep up with decay i play everyday and not getting anywere since they changed it someday i break even some days i lose fewer days i make more then decay and i take renown as most end rewards just to keep up

I, and many others, have argued that the daily decay should be reduced for tiny guilds (<10) to bring them in line with all other guilds. Such a reduction would obviously apply to the tiniest of all guilds.

[Artos_Fabril]

my guild level is 67 atm and it really hard to keep up with decay i play everyday and not getting anywere since they changed it someday i break even some days i lose fewer days i make more then decay and i take renown as most end rewards just to keep up

I am not arguing against your request for some sort of easing of decay. I both support eliminating it entirely, and have proposed a system wherein you would only receive decay equal to 1*level multiplier (473.701725 at level 67), and receive no decay on days you didn't log in at all.

However nothing in the decay changes other than the increased ransack penalty, which only applies if you level up, should be having any effect on your guild. Decay was not increased for anyone under the new system, although you have now reached the levels at which decay becomes a meaningful issue for most guilds.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Yes, larger guilds have more players in them and can earn more renown because they have more players to earn it. I don't see that, by itself, as a problem. It is how the world works. The more people you put to work on something, assuming they are all roughly equally good at it, the more you will accomplish. It is a system that reflects reality and treats equal work with equal reward. The guild that earns the most renown, levels the fastest. The guild that earns the least renown, levels the slowest. It's very simple. For the most part, the current system reflects that philosophy. The only exception is that tiny guilds with less than 10 members are paying an extra decay penalty that all other guilds are not paying. That part does need to be fixed. But the overall idea that more players can accomplish more than fewer players of the same approximate ability is sound.

in a perfect world horsepower = work / time; so the more 'horses' you have doing the work the less time it takes to achieve said work.

however in this world - maybe (best estimate) 10% of the players (at most) quest everyday that the servers are up; maybe another 25% quest at least 5 days a week. That leaves 65% questing at most 2-3 days a week, often less.

Now the large membership guilds were being penalized for having large numbers - and felt compelled to push out those that weren't the most active. This hurt the game and everyone's experience because that drove people away from the game. The highest level guilds often became an exclusive members club. At the same time the small member guilds didn't care because they had chosen to remain small.

Why should everyone care about gamer experience? the game we love to play (some hate but play) depends upon new players becoming old players. We need this influx of fresh blood because they help keep the game alive. If these new players aren't enjoying the game (and the guild system) they leave - often to never return.

Then the recent change. Guilds that had become exclusive now started recruiting en mass - because the decay no longer affected them. 30 accounts worth of decay? Math doesn't support small numbers - rather the more accounts the better. This has lead to guilds loosing their sense of self and that has hurt the membership. Small membership guilds then were being penalized because they were small (the change didn't directly affect them - but because large membership guilds significantly benefited - the small membership guilds were negatively impacted.)

I am trying to come up with a model - a simple efficient formula that makes sense for the greatest number of players and play styles.

Of course if you have a guild (of any size) that is 100% hard core 8 hour-per-day gamers - they will get ahead. However how many of those type of guilds are there and what kind of experience is that promoting? OLGA anyone? http://www.olganon.org/

In theory we should have the majority of guilds be a mixture of all types of players - ones that have a common goal or at least get along and share the expense of maintaining the ship and its amenities. Hopefully one where you can find some comradery and fellowship; maybe some good discussion once in a while; ones that help promote the game by helping the n00b's and creating a positive gaming atmosphere.

In order to do that we cannot penalize guilds of any size or level for players with different play-styles - including(especially) the weekend warriors.

What I am suggestion is clean - and simple. It is straightforward and easy to understand and implement. It doesn't penalize for not being 100% gung-ho OLGA active; nor does it penalize for those who just want to log in and do some casual role-play not in quest or even those who, like me, have auctions on more than one character.

This same system shows no favoritism; rather the more active you are the faster you grow; it allows every member - no matter how active to contribute without undo pressure on them in real life. This system allows for the loss of guild levels due to significant neglect and atrophy.

As I stated before - need a probationary period coupled with this change.

renown decay = number of guild accounts that log in during 24 hour decay window multiplied by static number (which is determined by renown typical player generates in a typical day * 25%).

so on days when few members are active the decay is low; and on days when many members are active - the renown is proportionately higher. In any case the decay is set to a level where reasonable play by a reasonable percentage of those who log in will be able to not only overcome but greatly exceed the decay.

The alternative I would propose would be a longer window with an average of logins. so instead of 24 hours the window would be a week. Decay would still happen daily, but the number of modified accounts used to compute decay would be the average number of member accounts that logged in each day from the last 7 days.

*shrug* I need to go raid my caffpow stash and find where I put the Chopin and Patron so I can spike it..... in the end players should want to join a guild because of the members and the quality of life (atmosphere) rather than the guild level and the amenities it offers.

[Zargarx]

In my experience, variation in activity seemed to be less affected by guild size than other factors.
In any case, let's say that it is true. Then the next question is by how much? If to hold the status quo for a large guild is an average of 1 trophy per member per day, what should a guild size of 40, 16 and 6 have to pull in per member (again this is to hold, and not to advance).

Perhaps the equation should separate the holding of renown (i.e. dealing with decay) and the advancement of the guild?

[UurlockYgmeov]

In my experience, variation in activity seemed to be less affected by guild size than other factors.
In any case, let's say that it is true. Then the next question is by how much? If to hold the status quo for a large guild is an average of 1 trophy per member per day, what should a guild size of 40, 16 and 6 have to pull in per member (again this is to hold, and not to advance).

Perhaps the equation should separate the holding of renown (i.e. dealing with decay) and the advancement of the guild?

my formula doesn't deal with advancement - rather the decay of renown.

since it is based on what a typical player earns in a typical day (and actually only about fraction of that) the size of the guild and level of the guild are irrelevant. the only relevant numbers are the number of member accounts that logged in that day (24 hour decay period). This levels the playing field for all guilds of all types with all different types of players.

so to answer your question - the same amount per member active that day.

[UurlockYgmeov]

You chose to go it alone in a solo guild and I think you should be able to do that and that you should be able to eventually level up too. But I don't think you should expect to be able to level up as fast as a guild with hundreds of players all working together.

what OP was saying is that he is in a guild of one - and he has to just play 4 hours a day just to fight renown decay

my guild level is 67 atm and it really hard to keep up with decay i play everyday and not getting anywere since they changed it someday i break even some days i lose fewer days i make more then decay and i take renown as most end rewards just to keep up

that isn't right. Yes, guilds of all membership sizes should be able to level - providing they put forth a reasonable effort. Yes, guilds with more active players should be able to level faster. It is the decay that is an issue.

When all you do is fight to maintain against decay - especially when you are being active....

[Tshober]

When all you do is fight to maintain against decay - well, wasn't that the argument the large membership guilds brought forth to enact this trial change?

Actually, no it was not. The main argument made by those who wanted the decay system changed was that the old decay system encouraged and rewarded guilds for shunning casual/social players. It is true that large guilds were mostly unable to advance versus daily decay, but that was not the main reason for the change.

I am the leader of a large guild and I fully support further reduction of decay to put tiny guilds (<10) in line with all other guilds that have benefited from the change in how decay works. Many posters in this thread have been supportive of that, including many who are from large guilds.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Actually, no it was not. The main argument made by those who wanted the decay system changed was that the old decay system encouraged and rewarded guilds for shunning casual/social players. It is true that large guilds were mostly unable to advance versus daily decay, but that was not the main reason for the change.

I am the leader of a large guild and I fully support further reduction of decay to put tiny guilds (<10) in line with all other guilds that have benefited from the change in how decay works. Many posters in this thread have been supportive of that, including many who are from large guilds.

point of correction taken. Understood and agree.

What I am suggesting (in a very rough mock up stage) does just that. makes decay fair for all guild sizes, levels and all styles of play.

[denna1]

I know no one will probably read this but,

Why make this so work-centric? I mean, I started playing DDO to have fun.
When I started you could not buy extra character slots and minimum level was 10. So I opened a second acct.
I now have 3 VIP accounts and one f2p that I never used (DDO gave me two f2p accts when they started the whole f2p thing, I converted one to VIP), and a total of 58 characters (I know, get a life, in my defense 20 of them are mules, wait... that doesn't really support my cause at all, I do need to get a life).
But seriously, I started my guild on Sarlona back when I started playing. At one time, before there were guild levels, the Crypt O Knights were a fairly large guild. We are much smaller now, and when DDO started the whole 'guild level' thing, we only had 3 active accounts. We are up to level 45, with 14 accounts (3 are mine) and slowly getting up there. But, looking at an earlier reply, that showed the total daily decay by guild level, I can't realistically see how we are ever going to be a high level guild.
I know I joked about getting a life earlier, but I work a full time job, 60+ hours a week, as do most of the people in my guild. It seems to me that at higher levels, with decay in the tens of thousands per day, only people who literally have no life, and spend all day, every day, doing nothing but playing DDO will ever benefit from this.
Guys, this is a game, meant for enjoyment and recreation by the very definition of the word game. Can we not simplify this a little bit.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I know no one will probably read this but,

Why make this so work-centric? I mean, I started playing DDO to have fun.
When I started you could not buy extra character slots and minimum level was 10. So I opened a second acct.
I now have 3 VIP accounts and one f2p that I never used (DDO gave me two f2p accts when they started the whole f2p thing, I converted one to VIP), and a total of 58 characters (I know, get a life, in my defense 20 of them are mules, wait... that doesn't really support my cause at all, I do need to get a life).
But seriously, I started my guild on Sarlona back when I started playing. At one time, before there were guild levels, the Crypt O Knights were a fairly large guild. We are much smaller now, and when DDO started the whole 'guild level' thing, we only had 3 active accounts. We are up to level 45, with 14 accounts (3 are mine) and slowly getting up there. But, looking at an earlier reply, that showed the total daily decay by guild level, I can't realistically see how we are ever going to be a high level guild.
I know I joked about getting a life earlier, but I work a full time job, 60+ hours a week, as do most of the people in my guild. It seems to me that at higher levels, with decay in the tens of thousands per day, only people who literally have no life, and spend all day, every day, doing nothing but playing DDO will ever benefit from this.
Guys, this is a game, meant for enjoyment and recreation by the very definition of the word game. Can we not simplify this a little bit.

so true....

keep the game fun - keep the renown decay simple and fair.

[Tshober]

Why make this so work-centric? I mean, I started playing DDO to have fun.

I agree with you. But some people are unable to have fun unless they are competing with other players. I would love to see renown decay eliminated entirely. Yes, that means that every guild regardless of size would eventually reach the highest level. So what? What does that hurt? It's a game and games are supposed to be fun. Spending much of your online time trying to fight back renown decay so your guild can advance is not fun.

But the problem is some players see that as fun. They see it as a challenge and a way to compete with other guilds. To them that is fun. Now I don't really understand how they can derive much fun from "beating" other guilds that don't even want to be competing with them, but apparently they do. So my suggestion for the uber competative crowd is lets have guild competitions but let's put some actual rules on them.

1) Guild competitions should be strictly voluntary. Participation should be completely optional.
2) Guild competitions should be completely separate from leveling up your guild.
3) Rewards for winning guild competitions should be "bragging rights only" rewards. (Ie. announcements, leader boards, temp buffs, cosmetics, etc.) Nothing that gives a permanent or endlessly repeatable advantage in the game.

That way the uber competative guilds can compete with each other as much as they want and the rest of us can have fun questing and leveling up our guilds.

[Nestroy]

By the way, with the servers down 2 days, we got hit by 3 times decay - for full 2 days plus the one time restart extra decay. And no way to farm any - so much for anybody in here hinting on "increasing activity".

[UurlockYgmeov]

By the way, with the servers down 2 days, we got hit by 3 times decay - for full 2 days plus the one time restart extra decay. And no way to farm any - so much for anybody in here hinting on "increasing activity".

I totally understand and am not enthusiastic about the triple hit. At least he large membership guilds will be able to recover exponentially faster than the small membership guilds. meh *shrug* doesn't matter - we are back!

However, just another reason my suggestion works - at most there would have been a single full hit, the other two days would have been as if only 1 person was counted.

Plus Tolero says they are working on it already: http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...postcount=2955

[Gremmlynn]

By the way, with the servers down 2 days, we got hit by 3 times decay - for full 2 days plus the one time restart extra decay. And no way to farm any - so much for anybody in here hinting on "increasing activity".

That's just the foolishness of setting decay to a real clock, rather than a server clock.

[Tshober]

That's just the foolishness of setting decay to a real clock, rather than a server clock.

Even that does not always help. I remember the ddo.com domain DNS fiasco that heppended like a year ago. Half of the people could not log in because the domain name expired and their ISP's DNS would not resolve the IP addresses. The servers were all up but many, many people could not log in for the entire weekened. Of course, decay just kept on trucking along like nothing happened. My guild lost 2/3 of a level on that one.

[Gremmlynn]

Even that does not always help. I remember the ddo.com domain DNS fiasco that heppended like a year ago. Half of the people could not log in because the domain name expired and their ISP's DNS would not resolve the IP addresses. The servers were all up but many, many people could not log in for the entire weekened. Of course, decay just kept on trucking along like nothing happened. My guild lost 2/3 of a level on that one.

That's just DDO. They seem to like to add lots of cool stuff without seriously asking how well it fits with the games nuts and bolts. So we end up with a lot of things that seem cool but only kind of work some of the time.

[Blue100000005]

Im surprised that you all have yet to give up. Nothing of value has come in 144 pages. And people are still egocentric and not listening.

[Chaos000]

Im surprised that you all have yet to give up. Nothing of value has come in 144 pages. And people are still egocentric and not listening.

Didn't you know? we like to get the last word in.

That and repeating speaking points over and over because the other person "obviously didn't get it" the first time.

Speaker A: Let's eliminate decay
Speaker B: Uh... decay isn't going away dude
Speaker A: eliminating decay will net more profit for turbine, people will buy ships and lots of people will start new guilds!
Speaker B: eliminating decay may increase sales initially but once people buy ships there's no incentive for them to keep spending money on renown potions or temporary shrines. There's no guarantee that people will start new guilds once they hit the max rank. Makes more sense to have the highest level buffs cost renown if they do remove decay
Speaker A: This instantly favors large guilds so no dice
Speaker B: Turbine needs to keep making money
Speaker A: decay doesn't make sense now that it doesn't apply to large guilds
Speaker B: I'm in a large guild and decay does apply. In fact it's not a size issue
Speaker A: I'm in a small guild and decay felt more per player
Speaker B: Dividing by numbers per player doesn't work. For each player inactive or not very active, decay is felt more per more active player.
Speaker A: it's always been this way. They should reduce decay per player for small guilds.
Speaker B: It's not a size issue, it's an activity issue.
Speaker A: I'm active, my guild is more active per player than larger guilds.
Speaker B: If you divide activity per player in any guild, larger guilds are consistently less active than smaller guilds because there's more people involved and therefore more difficult to manage
Speaker A: you're stupid, they should eliminate decay
Speaker B: you're stupid, decay is highly unlikely to go away.