Guild Renown Changes

[UurlockYgmeov]

I just do not agree with your proposed changes whatsoever, and don't think any proposal that goes back to penalizing by number of players has any place in the game.

I understand that Griffon's Nest on Sarlona has over 500 members and is level 80ish so your reluctance for any change (even one that is fair) is understandable.

However, the temporary change is unfair to the majority of players and guilds. If you look at the current stats for just Sarlona, you will see what is pretty much on every server - the average number of members in a guild is 30 - and the temporary change just shifted the feelings of persecution from the few to the many. That is not fair.

Being penalized for the number of players? That is a very narrow view of the topic. Does a guild benefit from having more players? Yes - so it is only fair that renown is based upon (partly) the number of players. How does the proposal make this fair without reverting to the system of perceived pressure to boot non-uber-hardcore players? Several ways - least of which is changing the window from 30 days to 2 days for inactivity i.e. if an account doesn't log into the game for 2 days - it isn't counted.

[eris2323]

I understand that Griffon's Nest on Sarlona has over 500 members and is level 80ish so your reluctance for any change (even one that is fair) is understandable.

However, the temporary change is unfair to the majority of players and guilds. If you look at the current stats for just Sarlona, you will see what is pretty much on every server - the average number of members in a guild is 30 - and the temporary change just shifted the feelings of persecution from the few to the many. That is not fair.

Being penalized for the number of players? That is a very narrow view of the topic. Does a guild benefit from having more players? Yes - so it is only fair that renown is based upon (partly) the number of players. How does the proposal make this fair without reverting to the system of perceived pressure to boot non-uber-hardcore players? Several ways - least of which is changing the window from 30 days to 2 days for inactivity i.e. if an account doesn't log into the game for 2 days - it isn't counted.

Yes, we're a large guild, and because of these changes, we've been able to give quite a few people a good, solid home that they love.

I'm not in favor of any system that will harm large guilds, such as your proposal to bring back the old systems decay vs number of players.

I believe that sort of attitude destroyed the original guild system; it was unplayable, and people were getting removed from guilds.

ALL of us large guilds WERE penalized for ALL of the previous years with the old, broken system.

Players left the game over it.

Why anyone would even suggest a return to any sort of penalty based on size of guild to me, is not only a bad idea, it would be almost criminal negligence on the part of Turbine - as again, it would be spiting their large player base.

System looks beeeeeeeautiful to me now; the devs fixed it perfectly.

Your proposed changes want to return us to an era - a bad era.

I do not agree with your proposal.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Yes, we're a large guild, and because of these changes,

System looks beeeeeeeautiful to me now; the devs fixed it perfectly.

I do not agree with your proposal.

Exactly what all large guilds say. So the sooner Turbine changes from this ad hoc ergo promptus hoc temporary kludge to a permanent solution the better.

You are entitled to your opinion - just as long as everyone understands that you are speaking for the minority - the minority of guilds with the minority of players.

The proposal is fair to all guilds of all sizes and levels, for all players of all play styles. If booting occurs after a change to this proposed system (which is like what is in place now, just with certain well thought out and fair tweaks) then the booting is not because of play styles rather because of some other reason.

So your objection is noted and filed. I will include it on the next posting of the proposal.

[eris2323]

Exactly what all large guilds say. So the sooner Turbine changes from this ad hoc ergo promtus hoc temporary kludge to a permanent solution the better.

You are entitled to your opinion - just as long as everyone understands that you are speaking for the minority - the minority of guilds with the minority of players.

The proposal is fair to all guilds of all sizes and levels, for all players of all play styles. If booting occurs after a change to this proposed system (which is like what is in place now, just with certain well thought out and fair tweaks) then the booting is not because of play styles rather because of some other reason.

So your objection is noted and filed. I will include it on the next posting of the proposal.

I also disagree that your changes would be fair to all players.

No matter how much you bold things, or try to 'file me away'.

[UurlockYgmeov]

SO here is the revised proposal - prioritized easiest to implement first to the most difficult last.

Eliminate Decay Altogether.

but if Turbine says no, then:

1. Revert to pre-change except for following significant changes that take away 99% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play. Booting will still occur - but not because of the system.
   
   1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to two days (changed to two to account for weekend);
   2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
   3. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels. and lower decay for higher level guilds by 35-50% (the level multiplier).
      
      1. New formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum 1) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).(corrected - forgot decimal) - this change alone reduces decay for most guilds by up to 93%)
      2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
   4. Ransack set to start at 500K per day or at 2nd level - whichever is easier to implement. Ransack doesn't start to kick in until (500K) or (2nd level) is reached.
   5. 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.
2. VIP's should get +10% renown - this is now in line with what Fernando stated about new benefits starting with +10% xp for VIPs that begin next patch(s.i.c. below).
3. 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.
4. there needs to be a new form of Global 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. Once a player is on your Global Friends List - you can see any of their characters from any of their characters (can still flag yourself as "invisible" or "do not disturb" to make a character not show up in global list). This lets us do global ignore as well, for those who would use it. Selecting (or hovering over with tool tip) a Global Friend in your list and it shows you the last (visible) character they logged in as, the server, and how long ago they logged off, if they aren't online. thanks to Artos_Fabril for the improvements!

add 10% boost to all earned XP for VIP accounts.

seen this firsthand (on Lammania) and in the Lamannia release notes.

Kindly Note: Large Guilds (which are the minority in both number and total membership vs total population) object to any changes from the temporary ad hoc kludged system and wish the existing temporary system made permanent.

[eris2323]

SO here is the revised proposal - prioritized easiest to implement first to the most difficult last.

Eliminate Decay Altogether.

but if Turbine says no, then:

1. Revert to pre-change except for following significant changes that take away 99% of the pressure away to boot. Is fair for all guilds of all sizes of all styles of play. Booting will still occur - but not because of the system.
   
   1. instead of 30 days until inactive, change to two days (changed to two to account for weekend);
   2. remove the +10 to the modified guild size in the formula, with a modified minimum guild size becoming one - no cap/limit.
   3. lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
   4. adjust decay to affect all guilds of all levels. and lower decay for higher level guilds by 10-15% (the level multiplier).
      
      1. New formula would be something like: modified_guild_size(minimum 1) x (guild_level x 2.5 (two point five)).(corrected - forgot decimal) - this change alone reduces decay for most guilds by up to 93%)
      2. Keep It Simple - keep it transparent and easy to explain, understand, and compute.
   5. Ransack set to start at 500K per day or at 2nd level - whichever is easier to implement. Ransack doesn't start to kick in until (500K) or (2nd level) is reached.
   6. 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.
2. VIP's should get +10% renown - this is now in line with what Fernando stated about new benefits starting with +10% xp for VIPs that begin next patch(s.i.c. below).
3. 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.
4. there needs to be a new form of Global 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. Once a player is on your Global Friends List - you can see any of their characters from any of their characters (can still flag yourself as "invisible" or "do not disturb" to make a character not show up in global list). This lets us do global ignore as well, for those who would use it. Selecting (or hovering over with tool tip) a Global Friend in your list and it shows you the last (visible) character they logged in as, the server, and how long ago they logged off, if they aren't online. thanks to Artos_Fabril for the improvements!

seen this firsthand (on Lammania) and in the Lamannia release notes.

Kindly Note: Large Guilds (which are the minority in both number and total membership vs total population) object to any changes from the temporary ad hoc system and wish the existing temporary system made permanent.

I do not agree that the devs should spend any time at all developing a 'facebook like' friends list

At all.

I'd much rather the devs finish the enhancements.

[Tictman]

It is not complicated, rather it is as simple as can be reasonably expected.

OK so now you use bold text instead of caps to yell at me because I ask a question?

I'm in a small guild just what the temp system hurts the most. Ya know what, I would rather keep the system as it is now rather than go to a way to complex system like yours. Why go back to any part of the old system? Why start including member numbers to the mix again? Members inactive after two days makes no sense. At least now we know just how much renown we need each day to not go backward. With the two day inactive thing we would have to calculate it daily. Here's a suggestion don't count member numbers and don't worry about them ever going inactive. Pretty simple huh?

[UurlockYgmeov]

Ya know what, I would rather keep the system as it is now

but this temporary ad hoc kludge system isn't fair.

This temporary ad hoc kludge system is just like the old - with one minor change.

The proposal just modifies the existing ad hoc temporary kludge system with well thought out changes that make the system simple and fair.

[eris2323]

but this temporary ad hoc kludge system isn't fair.

This temporary ad hoc kludge system is just like the old - with one minor change.

The proposal just modifies the existing ad hoc temporary kludge system with well thought out changes that make the system simple and fair.

I think the current system is fair.

I do not think your proposed system would be fair at all.

[Gremmlynn]

That is where you are only seeing the tree not the forest. Different Guilds have different purposes. Some are purposefully intent on competition; some are not. Different Guilds for different folks. Its allot like PvP - some players choose to do it, some only want to do it, some think it is a waste of time. That is what has keep this game alive - the diversity of the game in what it offers. Guilds need to have the ability to be as diverse, so being fair to all guilds is very important.

I will agree that it is a lot like pvp and state that it's just as important that it be fair and balanced as it is for pvp to be so. Which in this game seems to be; not important at all.

[Gremmlynn]

Being penalized for the number of players? That is a very narrow view of the topic. Does a guild benefit from having more players? Yes - so it is only fair that renown is based upon (partly) the number of players. How does the proposal make this fair without reverting to the system of perceived pressure to boot non-uber-hardcore players? Several ways - least of which is changing the window from 30 days to 2 days for inactivity i.e. if an account doesn't log into the game for 2 days - it isn't counted.

But it adds back in, if an account doesn't cover 2 days of decay when it does log in it's best to boot it. The whole "probationary member" thing just codifies who are the "real" guildies and ho are the hangers on.

Really, I don't see how your purposed system actually helps anyone. It just seems to pull those in large guilds down to the same level of perceived disadvantage as those in casual small guilds. Which just convinces the active core of those large guilds to jettison the casual bulk of the guild in order to remove that disadvantage.

The real reason those casual small guilds are at a disadvantage is because most of them are dysfunctional to operate in any capacity as they simply lack a functional active core.

[Gremmlynn]

The proposal just modifies the existing ad hoc temporary kludge system with well thought out changes that make the system simple and fair.

Fair to whom? It seems to me to be fair to guild leaders and other active core guild members who most care about guild levels and as unfair as the old system to the peripheral members who mostly join a guild due to have access to those active core members to play with.

The current system supports those casual players by creating a symbiotic relationship between the two groups and all flavors between. Under the old system, as well as your purposed system, the casual players brought nothing to the table for those active enough to actually run a functional guild (outside of static groups on a set schedule) to want them around.

[UurlockYgmeov]

If you think the proposal is unfair then prove it with math and post it.

Just be comprehensive:

Old system vs. temporary system vs proposed system.

Compare a 1, 6, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000 member guild at lv 1, 25, 50, 60, 73, 80, 90, 99, 100. Compare with difference levels of activity.

Show me and I might believe you, until then say all you want, the proposed system is fair and does eliminate the impetus of booting causal players except from most hard-core guilds.

The current temporary kludge ONLY does this for large guilds, which are the minority in both number and population.

The real reason those casual small guilds are at a disadvantage is because most of them are dysfunctional to operate in any capacity as they simply lack a functional active core.

Oh REALLY???? I find that post to be offensive, rude, and inflammatory because it is just a blatant misrepresentation and obvious distortion, an absolutely falsehood. Your bias and core beliefs come out and show their taint toward this subject. How can you categorically classify the majority organisation and play style of guilds and players????

Obfuscation. Kobold like fire to cook rat, but your fire is only smoke *cough* *cough* *cough* - Kobold still see you!

As far as who or what defines what as you say are 'good' and 'bad' guildies - it isn't the game, its the players - ie the guild leadership. The first step in preventing 'bad' guildies (or unwanted) is clearly communicating expectations - which the proposed addition of a guild probationary invite system assists with. hmmm, I've seen this written before....

Oh, and Grems, there is something called "multiquote" - rather all the rage and is only polite.

[slarden]

Just a quick note to thank the devs for the increased renown opportunities provided to us lately. I don't know if it was unintentional or intentional, but it's appreciated:

1) The ability to get end rewards from the new gianthold flagging quests and Tor. None of the other Eberron epics that have a heroic version offer guild renown as an end reward. This alone generated hundreds of thousands of renown for my guild
2) Renown drops from monsters in Crystal Cove. It's nice to be able to participate in a festival without our guild moving backwards so much.
3) More frequent guild bonus weekends. Tacking these on to other bonuses as you did recently was great. Some guilds can only move up when there there are bonuses in place like this due to their high decay tax.
4) 100% renown pots added to the store. While most guilds can't afford these, it's nice for the guilds that can.

It's been great to see my friends in one large guild gain 20 levels since this change after being stuck around level 60 since I started playing the game. I would like to see my friends in small guilds that are stuck @ a level also advance and I hope in time the system will work for them, but I saw one small guild that has been stuck at a level for at least a year advance 1 level which I attribute largely to the changes above.

Thank you.

[Wipey]

The real reason those casual small guilds are at a disadvantage is because most of them are dysfunctional to operate in any capacity as they simply lack a functional active core.

Right.
Lvl 85 ,10 accounts (240% bonus) vs 200 accounts. 29478 daily decay, 1 096 550 to 86.

Small guild member have to pull almost 6 times more to battle the decay and to level the guild.

Dysfunctional, my a$$.

[Tshober]

There is no mandatory competition. Guild competition is completely voluntary in two ways: first don't participate in a guild at all, or be in a totally social guild that doesn't care about levels or other things. You always have the choice.

LOL. Yeah, everything is an optional choice. So is playing DDO at all. Your statements are meaningless, in the context of guild play. You could even say that if you get kicked out of your guild because you can't earn enough renown, that was also your choice because you chose not to play more and spend all your time farming renown. But clueless statements like that don't make it right, or make it fun, or make it a good way to design a guild leveling system.

[eris2323]

If you think the proposal is unfair then prove it with math and post it.

Just be comprehensive:

Old system vs. temporary system vs proposed system.

Compare a 1, 6, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000 member guild at lv 1, 25, 50, 60, 73, 80, 90, 99, 100. Compare with difference levels of activity.

Show me and I might believe you, until then say all you want, the proposed system is fair and does eliminate the impetus of booting causal players except from most hard-core guilds.

The current temporary kludge ONLY does this for large guilds, which are the minority in both number and population.



Oh REALLY???? I find that post to be offensive, rude, and inflammatory because it is just a blatant misrepresentation and obvious distortion, an absolutely falsehood. Your bias and core beliefs come out and show their taint toward this subject. How can you categorically classify the majority organisation and play style of guilds and players????

Obfuscation. Kobold like fire to cook rat, but your fire is only smoke *cough* *cough* *cough* - Kobold still see you!

As far as who or what defines what as you say are 'good' and 'bad' guildies - it isn't the game, its the players - ie the guild leadership. The first step in preventing 'bad' guildies (or unwanted) is clearly communicating expectations - which the proposed addition of a guild probationary invite system assists with. hmmm, I've seen this written before....

Oh, and Grems, there is something called "multiquote" - rather all the rage and is only polite.

I think your proposal is unfair because you want to go back to having guilds penalized based on casual players, and number of players.

That's all the proof you need.

Everyone wants to be King.

No one wants to be the footsoldier.

[Menace13]

Not sure how the renown system works. But It feels like, to me, that it is easier for guilds to gain levels now. The change went in some time in late Sept/early Oct?

[Gremmlynn]

[COLOR="Red"]Oh REALLY???? I find that post to be offensive, rude, and inflammatory because it is just a blatant misrepresentation and obvious distortion, an absolutely falsehood. Your bias and core beliefs come out and show their taint toward this subject. How can you categorically classify the majority organisation and play style of guilds and players????

Obfuscation. Kobold like fire to cook rat, but your fire is only smoke *cough* *cough* *cough* - Kobold still see you!

As far as who or what defines what as you say are 'good' and 'bad' guildies - it isn't the game, its the players - ie the guild leadership. The first step in preventing 'bad' guildies (or unwanted) is clearly communicating expectations - which the proposed addition of a guild probationary invite system assists with. hmmm, I've seen this written before....

Oh, and Grems, there is something called "multiquote" - rather all the rage and is only polite.

What exactly do you find wrong with my views?

As far as probationary invites go, I could only see the most exclusive guilds using that to be sure a new player fits into rather tight guild lines. Go back to the old system where every player has to "carry their weight" against decay and active guilds will simply not be inviting casual players as they no longer automatically provide anything useful to the guild. As far as filtering out the D-bags, we already have a system for that, it's called booting the D-bags. It's what separates guild groups from pugs.

As far as multiquote goes, it just doesn't fit my spontaneous posting style (i.e. I'm not being paid enough to worry about it).

[Gremmlynn]

Right.
Lvl 85 ,10 accounts (240% bonus) vs 200 accounts. 29478 daily decay, 1 096 550 to 86.

Small guild member have to pull almost 6 times more to battle the decay and to level the guild.

Dysfunctional, my a$$.

Guild leveling has nothing to do with it. A guild of 10, or even 50, players who each play 5 hours/week and generally not the same 5 hours as anyone else in the guild is, IMO dysfunctional. A guild of 10 or even 5 players that play 3+ hours/day most days, on the other hand is functional regardless how many 5 hour/week players it has and is generally a great guild for 5 hour/week players to be in.