Guild Renown Changes

[Tshober]

actually - you are misinterpreting. with the 24 hour inactivity the proposed system has no downside to any guild, of any size, of any level of any play style.

Oh really? What about those guilds that you yourself said should not be able to advance? I guess not advancing is an upside for them?

[Chaos000]

Wrong. Incorrect *BZZZZZZZ* sorry no joy

actually - you are misinterpreting. with the 24 hour inactivity the proposed system has no downside to any guild, of any size, of any level of any play style.

The proposed system of the 24 hour inactivity still has a downside to any guild that have any players who log in regularly but do not generate renown that would not have otherwise incurred an additional decay penalty to the guild for merely being social.

I'm aware that this falls under the "you can't please everyone." The current system while not perfect addresses making even non-renown generating daily players desireable to have in guild and the very little renown they do gain counts as much as any other player. Should the proposed system continue to do so, you'll get no opposition from me

[UurlockYgmeov]

Perhaps the solution would be for the other it similarly not be affected by guild size.

No matter how you slice it - that part of the equation is fixed. Decay is something that is affected by size - on one or both sides of the equation. Decay is felt by the whole guild, the more members it has, the less it feels it unless you balance the equation like we are trying to do. Please read entire post - there might be a ray of sunshine that balances the equation fairly.

The proposed system of the 24 hour inactivity still has a downside to any guild that have any players who log in regularly but do not generate renown that would not have otherwise incurred an additional decay penalty to the guild for merely being social.

I'm aware that this falls under the "you can't please everyone." The current system while not perfect addresses making even non-renown generating daily players desireable to have in guild and the very little renown they do gain counts as much as any other player. Should the proposed system continue to do so, you'll get no opposition from me

You are right, it does fall under 'can't please everyone,' but doesn't mean we shouldn't at least spend some thought on how to improve it.

And how does the current temporary system make non-renown generating daily players desirable? All it does is makes them neutral at best instead of potentially a liability. Just saying.

The case you are talking about - basically being in a guild just to be social, and being in multiple guilds at once are not in my experience common. In the hundreds of players I have run with - only one or two were in multiple guilds. So if that is the statistic (less than one percent of players) - then that is a very minimal, practical non-existent impact on renown decay on all but the smallest of guilds; which their being a member and causing additional decay is probably offset by small guild bonus.

I wish there was a way to satisfy that; the suggestion about making it so each account cannot generate more decay than it generates in that day is a nice thought - but if you look at it from this way - there will never be any chance of decay, the guild can never atrophy or shrivel from neglect.

The numbers I am working with (still working on model - sorry - GH called my name today - had a couple dragons to fight, and well, GH is just fun) make decay more of background noise to all the noise that is made by guild activity in general - present and still visible - just not as noticeable unless the guild's activity level falls far below normal.

Just like buffs continue to count-down when you are logged in, decay should always be there. There just isn't a simple way to separate the log in to not quest and generate renown from the rest; because the suggestion of no possible decay is exactly that - eliminates decay and makes it a tax on renown gain.

Gaining renown is like fishing - you sometimes catch lots, sometime some, and sometimes get skunked, but you always have to buy minnows...

*sigh* will mull this over in my dreams and see what happens...

one thought - might be easily to do - but might still be too complex - don't count a member towards modified guild size until they start a quest/slayer area or generate renown, use the ship or guild vendors. That might be the simplest answer....

[Tshober]

I wish there was a way to satisfy that; the suggestion about making it so each account cannot generate more decay than it generates in that day is a nice thought - but if you look at it from this way - there will never be any chance of decay, the guild can never atrophy or shrivel from neglect.

So? What does it hurt if dead guilds don't decay? If the concern is really that dead guilds will hang around too long then there are much better solutions than having the guild slowly decay daily. It would be very simple to auto-disband guilds that become totally inactive for a specific period of time. Problem solved. No need to shun social players who ARE active and logging in to enjoy the game, even if they are not earning much renown.

[Chaos000]

And how does the current temporary system make non-renown generating daily players desirable? All it does is makes them neutral at best instead of potentially a liability. Just saying.

The current temporary system make non-renown generating daily players far more desirable in comparison to a system that makes them a liability. So long as they continue to not be UNdesireable I could be ok with pretty much any system.

The case you are talking about - basically being in a guild just to be social, and being in multiple guilds at once are not in my experience common.

It was common practice until the guild level system was implemented. In fact, all my friends were “mostly” part of one decent sized guild with varying playstyles. It wasn’t until we hit the realization that despite all our efforts to advance the guild, we would inevitably not hit max level due to the number of casual members. That was when the most active members started defecting to smaller guilds that excluded casual members as the result of a desire to be in a guild that was capable of hitting max rank. I had gotten married around that time and women are a little wierd about their husbands spending time with them. I just had a daugher in January and unfortunately she's too small to click a mouse so she can't level up my character for me while I'm at work.

I wish there was a way to satisfy that; the suggestion about making it so each account cannot generate more decay than it generates in that day is a nice thought - but if you look at it from this way - there will never be any chance of decay, the guild can never atrophy or shrivel from neglect.

Actually… since all guilds start at 0 renown if the sum of all the renown of players in the guild decayed but not beyond what they have earned, a guild could atrophy and shrivel from neglect. Renown gained by players that left or were booted would continue to decay until it also hit 0.

I’m ok with decay always being there so long as my neighbor doesn’t have to generate extra if I’m not generating enough nor would I have to generate extra because a neighbor isn’t generating enough.

one thought - might be easily to do - but might still be too complex - don't count a member towards modified guild size until they start a quest/slayer area or generate renown, use the ship or guild vendors.

Totally ok with that.

[UurlockYgmeov]

The current temporary system make non-renown generating daily players far more desirable in comparison to a system that makes them a liability. So long as they continue to not be UNdesireable I could be ok with pretty much any system.

Agree.

It was common practice until the guild level system was implemented. In fact, all my friends were “mostly” part of one decent sized guild with varying playstyles. It wasn’t until we hit the realization that despite all our efforts to advance the guild, we would inevitably not hit max level due to the number of casual members. That was when the most active members started defecting to smaller guilds that excluded casual members as the result of a desire to be in a guild that was capable of hitting max rank. I had gotten married around that time and women are a little wierd about their husbands spending time with them. I just had a daugher in January and unfortunately she's too small to click a mouse so she can't level up my character for me while I'm at work.

Darn - no phantom clicker (yet)! Respect - RL comes first and gratz on the wedding and child!

I’m ok with decay always being there so long as my neighbor doesn’t have to generate extra if I’m not generating enough nor would I have to generate extra because a neighbor isn’t generating enough.

But isn't that the nature of a collective? Everyone pools their resources in order to benefit the whole; and if one needs something they lean on you, and if you need something - you lean on them? Somebody still has to pay the electric bill and the water and sewer.

one thought - might be easily to do - but might still be too complex - don't count a member towards modified guild size until they start a quest/slayer area or generate renown, use the ship or guild vendors.

Totally ok with that.

Good. Thought more about it - and it would work - but in order to be fair - instead of a 24 hour window, it would have to be a three day window (counting toward modified size)

so as long as you don't generate potential to earn renown (quest/slayer/generate renown, use the ship or the vendors) then you have zero impact. Once you do, then you affect the modified guild size for a three days.

Since the model is based upon how much renown a typical player makes in a typical session and divided by 4 - then this still should be fair.

[McFlay]

Haven't been on the forums for a while and this thread got ridiculously big. Has turbine announced any plans to stop the small guild hate or is this broken, biased system here to stay?

[UurlockYgmeov]

Haven't been on the forums for a while and this thread got ridiculously big. Has turbine announced any plans to stop the small guild hate or is this broken, biased system here to stay?

Last post by any Turbine (in this case a Dev) was just about a month ago. I reposted in the posts in the last page or two.

There are unofficial rumors of changes in the works.

In any case the Devs are reading (at least trying to keep up) with this thread.

and yes, this thread is insanely long. :P

What are your two cents?

[Tictman]

My guild is small, you can hate me for not wanting it to be large if you like. We have 12 members 6 vip that play almost daily, 6 f2p who are casual. They play anywhere from once a week to once every two to three weeks depending on their schedule. So you can't hate me because I don't support the casual and or f2p player. Our guild is small because we like playing together and choose that over a mass of members that we hardly know.

Under the old system renown hardly moved the decay per player killed us. Under this new system we are gaining levels, slowly but still gaining. The new system is much better than it was. Personally I would like to see decay completely removed from the game, but if that's not an option I prefer the way it is now compared to the old system.

I feel that I make sense but I'm sure you will hate me for something posted here.

[Tshober]

My guild is small, you can hate me for not wanting it to be large if you like. We have 12 members 6 vip that play almost daily, 6 f2p who are casual. They play anywhere from once a week to once every two to three weeks depending on their schedule. So you can't hate me because I don't support the casual and or f2p player. Our guild is small because we like playing together and choose that over a mass of members that we hardly know.

Under the old system renown hardly moved the decay per player killed us. Under this new system we are gaining levels, slowly but still gaining. The new system is much better than it was. Personally I would like to see decay completely removed from the game, but if that's not an option I prefer the way it is now compared to the old system.

I feel that I make sense but I'm sure you will hate me for something posted here.

You make perfect sense to me. And I agree with you too!

[UurlockYgmeov]

My guild is small, you can hate me for not wanting it to be large if you like. We have 12 members 6 vip that play almost daily, 6 f2p who are casual. They play anywhere from once a week to once every two to three weeks depending on their schedule. So you can't hate me because I don't support the casual and or f2p player. Our guild is small because we like playing together and choose that over a mass of members that we hardly know.

Under the old system renown hardly moved the decay per player killed us. Under this new system we are gaining levels, slowly but still gaining. The new system is much better than it was. Personally I would like to see decay completely removed from the game, but if that's not an option I prefer the way it is now compared to the old system.

I feel that I make sense but I'm sure you will hate me for something posted here.

hear you and the proposal we are working on would actually decrease the amount of decay you are experiencing - drastically.

it works by changing how inactive players are computed (amongst other things) - ie instead of a month - changing the time-frame of what is considered for decay math.

Only Kobold Hate You!

I plan on reposting the entire proposal later today. Once I do - kindly tell us what you think.

Mahalo in advance!

[Gremmlynn]

What we all want is a system that is fair to all guilds, of all sizes, of all levels, of all styles of play that still allows for the eventual decay and perishment based upon neglect and entropy.

That may be what you want. But I can tell you for a fact it isn't what we all want. Personally, I want a system that is as inclusive as possible for all players and find no real need for eventual "perishment". Frankly, I'd rather just take that whole concept off the table as it could make people worry about making recruitment mistakes.

Again, not all guilds should be able to reach level one hundred. Reaching level 100 should take effort and only be the penultimate achievement for highly motivated guilds. It is like saying all people should be able to win the lottery - ok - so everyone wins, but what is it worth when everyone who enters wins? Much less than the price of admission.

I disagree. What worth are character levels without xp decay then?

Reaching guild level 100 should be little different than reaching character level 25, attainable by all at their own pace. Maybe even more so as guilds are, at their base, social organizations that help integrate players into the game. Adding to the definition of what makes a "good guildie" just detracts from that. MMO's are all about personal progression, not comparative achievements.

[Gremmlynn]

Well, I am sure your guild does not need to boot inactive members. Mine has to in order to grow, sad as it is.

Which is why I think decay (and small guild bonuses) should just go away. It does nothing but get in the way of a better play experience.

[Gremmlynn]

I think the goal should be to fairly assign decay to all guilds, of all levels and sizes and play styles - while minimizing (cannot eliminate all together) impact on casual players.

If it can't be eliminated altogether, then decay should just go away. If that means guild levels and all that go with them also go away, then so be it. Because to me, if the system has any an impact on guild membership for anyone, it is getting in the way of guilds being guilds. This is especially true for casual players who don't play as much and thus don't have as extensive personal social networks.

[Chaos000]

But isn't that the nature of a collective? Everyone pools their resources in order to benefit the whole; and if one needs something they lean on you, and if you need something - you lean on them? Somebody still has to pay the electric bill and the water and sewer.

The moment a utility bill is assigned to each person, each individual failing to consistently pay their “bill” is a financial “burden” and therefore the collective would be better served to kick those of insufficient income out into the street.

Why not base decay on the total number of guild shrine uses? In effect, a real… utility bill

I think we’re overthinking it. The game really shouldn’t require much if any virtual upkeep.

[RANT] It shouldn’t matter that I’m the type of player to quest in a manner to usually pull in consistent renown (personal record is 9000 renown no dual boxing after 3 hours). I’ve already paid for a physical ddo collectors box set AND the expansion at full price two days before it first went on sale for 50% off (not that I’m bitter) and then a better version on Black Friday (ok a little bitter), on top of paying on a monthly basis to support the game (because I sincerely want the game to last a long long time) financially even during the month’s I don’t have the time to log in to quest. And now I get hit with virtual bill for logging in? [/RANTOFF]

The only reason why I don’t jump on the “let’s remove decay” bandwagon is because decay when applied properly makes sense financially. I can accept that. Otherwise there’s no incentive to buy guild shrines due to not having unlocked the higher bonus yet, renown potions for faster renown gains, astral diamonds for larger ship sizes. However, decay should have always been based on the guild and not multiplied per player. Decay that scales down per lower size tier and renown ransack not applying until after 2nd level earned? Sure it makes sense. Decay that scales down or up for each player booted or added on the other hand sounds punitive to any guild willing to retain charity cases.

[Gremmlynn]

Isn't that what the friends list is for?

Basically, guilds are just more efficient forms of friends lists. It's, to me, their primary function and any add on system that detracts from that is a poor system.

[Gremmlynn]

A guild that doesn't earn any renown should atrophy and decay. Period.

Why?

your understanding of this non-issue is, well, off.

FYI: Proposal is to change from a level based ransack to a 500,000 per day ransack level.

It is nearly impossible for a small guild (like you say) to earn more than a level a day at higher guild levels. It takes 1.5(ish) million renown to go from level 99 to 100. Now simple basic math:
1,500,000 / 30 (members) = 50,000 renown per member (with 100%) activity. Even with a +50% elixir and a +30% renown boost it is nearly impossible to attain.

another example:
level 70 to 71 is 745,000 (ish) renown.
745,000 / 6 = 124,667 (ish) renown per member (with 100% activity). Even with a +300% small guild bonus, +50% elixir and a +30% renown boost it is nearly impossible to attain.

yet another (gratuitous) example:
1,500,000 / 300 (members) = 5,000 renown per member (with 100%) activity. Now this is doable without boosts and elixirs.

So the issue you present seems is with large and huge membership guilds feeling the effects of renown ransack as opposed to small or medium sized guilds.

Actually, it's your understanding of how the system currently works that is off. While your proposed 500k in a day system would fix it, the current system kicks in ransack any day a level is gained. Not any day a full levels worth of renown is earned.

As for every guild eventually gaining level 100. How is everyone topping out at 100 worse than the current system where every guild tops out at some level? Are "bragging rights" for a few really worth making the vast majority of the games customer base into perpetual losers? I don't know about you, but that's not how I would run my business if retaining those customers was one of my goals. Just seems a good way of separating the winners from the former players.

[Gremmlynn]

There is a point of equilibrium - where the size and activity level of a guild makes leveling more and more difficult. That is part of the system. The point is to make it so all guilds can make it to level 100, but not all guilds will.

A part of the system that is combated by dumping those players who contribute to size without contributing to activity level it would seem to me

I challenge you to present concrete proof of your speculations. I also challenge you to see how boring a world would be without decay when achieving level 100 means nothing. Kinda like the grotto.... Hear that? Jeet's is calling your name! Kobold on union break!

About as boring as a world where you top out at any other level I would think. But at least it doesn't present the temptation to get lean and mean by dumping the less active members in order to get past it.

Really, how is everyone being stuck at level 100 different than everyone being stuck at some other level based on their activity level? Other than pointing out who the winners and losers are and is that really important enough to make the majority of players into losers?

[UurlockYgmeov]

I apologize in advance - this is going to be a long post. :EEK: But thought better to have just one post than multiple.

That may be what you want. But I can tell you for a fact it isn't what we all want. Personally, I want a system that is as inclusive as possible for all players and find no real need for eventual "perishment". Frankly, I'd rather just take that whole concept off the table as it could make people worry about making recruitment mistakes. I disagree. What worth are character levels without xp decay then?

I normally keep my personal feelings out of this - but for clarity - I do not like decay, I do not wish for decay.

And to answer your next question of 'why then' - it is simple, there has been nothing posted saying that removing decay is on the table. LOTRO hasn't done it - so there is also no peer precidence. So if removal of decay altogether isn't possible - then we must try to make it fair.

Making it fair isn't about pleasing every single person. That is an impossible task that cannot be done. seriously - it cannot be done; and this comes from a person who thinks everything can be done.

So to quote the developer (Vargouille):

We're all for new ideas and brainstorming solutions (truly, really, not just tossing buzzwords). This particular idea is problematic, because it promotes kicking players from your guild to reduce decay, which is where we were before and a situation we want to avoid.

We are certainly still considering other changes and have never said that the current changes being tested were considered any kind of final solution. We'd love to have more ideas to consider.

Ideas that are more likely to work out are ones that feel fair, promote playing together with people you like and have fun with, and where the system itself isn't promoting who you play with. We don't want to promote any particular guild size. And we don't want incentives for kicking players you enjoy playing with, or for players who might like to come and hang out or play occasionally to feel like they are hurting their guild or harming their friends in any way. If these goals seem wrong, we're willing to hear ideas on that too. This isn't an exhaustive list, but current thinking is leaning us strongly towards including these goals.

As far as character levels vs guild levels - two different beasts and is like comparing apples to walnuts; but both do decay, just in different ways. Characters either cap out and stagnat or they TR and that is one massive hit of decay....

Reaching guild level 100 should be little different than reaching character level 25, attainable by all at their own pace. Maybe even more so as guilds are, at their base, social organizations that help integrate players into the game. Adding to the definition of what makes a "good guildie" just detracts from that. MMO's are all about personal progression, not comparative achievements.

All guilds can reach level 100 - their ability to depends on many factors. The proposal that is included here (still draft) is fair, and still allows for this.

Which is why I think decay (and small guild bonuses) should just go away. It does nothing but get in the way of a better play experience.

Already included in proposal - along with a 'just in case that doesn't fly'

The moment a utility bill is assigned to each person, each individual failing to consistently pay their “bill” is a financial “burden” and therefore the collective would be better served to kick those of insufficient income out into the street.

Again, my failure because that was a poor analogy. But that goes against the intrinsic concept of a collective. A member brings more to the table than just renown potential.

Why not base decay on the total number of guild shrine uses? In effect, a real… utility bill

Love it - but then you would have shrine police.... and then guilds would want tracking... and wow, 1984 all over again.

I think we’re overthinking it. The game really shouldn’t require much if any virtual upkeep.

Agree - hence the repeated used of KIS in this forum. So far the proposal follows that basic tenet.

[RANT] It shouldn’t matter that I’m the type of player to quest in a manner to usually pull in consistent renown (personal record is 9000 renown no dual boxing after 3 hours). I’ve already paid for a physical ddo collectors box set AND the expansion at full price two days before it first went on sale for 50% off (not that I’m bitter) and then a better version on Black Friday (ok a little bitter), on top of paying on a monthly basis to support the game (because I sincerely want the game to last a long long time) financially even during the month’s I don’t have the time to log in to quest. And now I get hit with virtual bill for logging in? [/RANTOFF]

[RANT]DITTO.[/RANT] we have all tried to make the game better (I hope) and support this game so it will last another 7+ years.

No - the proposal has been modified because of your concerns. See it below.

The only reason why I don’t jump on the “let’s remove decay” bandwagon is because decay when applied properly makes sense financially. I can accept that. Otherwise there’s no incentive to buy guild shrines due to not having unlocked the higher bonus yet, renown potions for faster renown gains, astral diamonds for larger ship sizes. However, decay should have always been based on the guild and not multiplied per player. Decay that scales down per lower size tier and renown ransack not applying until after 2nd level earned? Sure it makes sense. Decay that scales down or up for each player booted or added on the other hand sounds punitive to any guild willing to retain charity cases.

Hense the (optional) probationary invite; and that should resolve most of your concerns. There needs to be a signifigant incentive to guild leadership to make booting a player the last possible alternative.
just brainstorming here: There is the possibility of making successive boots culmative --- so the first one is free - but each one costs more within the two week timeframe. something to mull over.

'charity case' - there are no charity cases - there are just three types of player: those in guilds, those that aren't; and those that are undesirables (thieves, instigators and the like). If a person is in a guild they contribute to it in someway. Those that aren't in a guild should want to be included because of perceived value.

Basically, guilds are just more efficient forms of friends lists. It's, to me, their primary function and any add on system that detracts from that is a poor system.

At the most basic of functionality: Agree - and good point. Don't agree that guilds 'primary' function. Guilds are like society - give up something to gain something perceived as more valuable (members of society give up some freedom (right to do anything they wish) in order to gain some something (I won't kill you if you don't kill me etc)). Now that is an oversimplification, but it gets the point across. Guilds are a consortium of characters doing a mass quid pro quo. To what extent the quids go - well that is up to the guild leadership. A most basic guild could just be a social guild, and the most sophisticated guild has organized raids, crafting, a guildportal.com site, a forum, mentors, and so on.

Can one guild be both? Don't think so - so have added to the proposal - there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.

A guild that doesn't earn any renown should atrophy and decay. Period.

Why?

Because decay is a constant in life. Death begins with Birth. It is the struggle to overcome decay and death that defines us and challenges us. To give up is to decay and wither and die.

Actually, it's your understanding of how the system currently works that is off. While your proposed 500k in a day system would fix it, the current system kicks in ransack any day a level is gained. Not any day a full levels worth of renown is earned.

I have stated many times that my ken of ransack is limited. Don't have any personal experience with it. Have however sought to understand.
SO how does my understanding of the current ransack impact the proposed change to ransack? It doesn't - just proves that the change is warrented and effective and fair.

As for every guild eventually gaining level 100. How is everyone topping out at 100 worse than the current system where every guild tops out at some level? Are "bragging rights" for a few really worth making the vast majority of the games customer base into perpetual losers? I don't know about you, but that's not how I would run my business if retaining those customers was one of my goals. Just seems a good way of separating the winners from the former players.

What a glass is half empty view. I am not a loser and everyone I know isn't a loser.

The biggest reason guilds want levels are the perks - the bigger ships with more hook-points for greater buffs, that and access to guild augment slotted equipment. Oh, guild slotted equipment no longer drops???

SO what you are saying is anyone can make a guild and have instantaccess to all the 30 resists and +2 stats and +5% xp shrines and on the ships with the most hook-points??

Take this to the logical conclusion - just give everyone 30 resists and +2 stats and +5% xp at all times??? ridiculous... no because that is what it is, taking the argument to the logical conclusion. Those buffs - the guilds have had to earn them.

Don't worry - Turbine will just add another button to the character screen - for 3/9/15 Astral shards have a +2 stat buff until logout, for 5/15/30 Astral shards have 30 resists until log out.... For 5 astral shards - teleport to GH.... or Meridia....

So if we can do it - so can the monsters. (Basic DM 101 - if the players can do it - so can the monsters)

Yes extreme - but well, logical.

A part of the system that is combated by dumping those players who contribute to size without contributing to activity level it would seem to me About as boring as a world where you top out at any other level I would think. But at least it doesn't present the temptation to get lean and mean by dumping the less active members in order to get past it.

Incentives to keep pushing. The proposed system combats the temptation - but there will always be temptation; and will always be social ostracism even without a guild (happens - darn n00b's - darn zergers - darn kobolds!). All we can do is provide incentives to limit it.

Really, how is everyone being stuck at level 100 different than everyone being stuck at some other level based on their activity level? Other than pointing out who the winners and losers are and is that really important enough to make the majority of players into losers?

Really? because all guilds would be at their stuck point; and the proposed system does allow for the greatest number to succeed.

If you want something free - then look elsewhere. The game might be free - but as has been said numerous times - the elation and intrinsic benefits for success are often proportional to the struggles to achieve greatness. Because if everyone could do it - what is the actual achievement?

SO here is the revised proposal (and will post again shortly in its own post)
Eliminate Decay Altogether.

but if Turbine says no, then:

1. Implement (aka ADD a)simple probationary (two-week) guild invite - invitee does not affect guild renown. So doesn't earn renown, and isn't counted toward modified guild size. Allows guild and prospect to try each other out and see if the fit is right.
   
2. Revert to pre-change except for three significant changes that take away 95% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play.
   
   1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to three days;
   2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one.
   3. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
3. Ransack set to 500K per day instead of current temporary 3 levels and instead of the original 7 levels.
   
4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.... this allows for entropy to hit (level 1 to 100). (Lowest level guilds only having ~ 1 for a multiplier.)
   
5. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
   
6. VIP's should get 250? renown a day per account - first character to log in receives - this renown is not subject to size or other boost modifiers.
   
7. there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.

[UurlockYgmeov]

SO here is the revised proposal
Eliminate Decay Altogether.

but if Turbine says no, then:

1. Implement (aka ADD a)simple probationary (two-week) guild invite - invitee does not affect guild renown. So doesn't earn renown, and isn't counted toward modified guild size. Allows guild and prospect to try each other out and see if the fit is right.
   
2. Revert to pre-change except for three significant changes that take away 95% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play.
   
   1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to three days;
   2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one.
   3. member is not counted toward modified guild size until steps into quest, slayer area, on any guild ship, uses guild vendor, or generates renown in any form.
3. Ransack set to 500K per day instead of current temporary 3 levels and instead of the original 7 levels.
   
4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels.... this allows for entropy to hit (level 1 to 100). (Lowest level guilds only having ~ 1 for a multiplier.)
   
5. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
   
6. VIP's should get 250? renown a day per account - first character to log in receives - this renown is not subject to size or other boost modifiers.
   
7. there needs to be a new form of friends list - one that acts like facebook in most basic essence. You ask someone to be on your friends list (or offer) - and can select to be public, private; to show online status - last log, show all or just one characters in account; and an easier way to talk with them in game without having to be in a guild.