Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

You are making this personal again.


We never left the old system - just put a well-intentioned but essentially flawed, thankfully temporary kludge into it.


Agree - that blue is horrible. Orange next time.



It is already in the game with guild slotted equipment, and since the same buff they wouldn't stack with existing guild slotted equipment buffs - so it is an either/or.

Essentially what is already in game but with simpler execution.

Thank you for pointing out the needed clarification. Well add and repost.

I will still not support your suggest proposal, as I feel it is based on flawed data and made up numbers.

Is there really any need to keep re-posting this multiple times a day in different colors?

Do you think simply repeating yourself and being annoying will help your cause?

[UurlockYgmeov]

think simply repeating yourself and being annoying

You seem to think so.

btw - I will break this down for you once again, but in different terms - the numbers are not imaginary - rather based upon scientific analysis of existing albeit imperfect information.

You are making it sound like bistromathics was involved. Quite untrue.

Pardon me, but upon the mention of a Bistro - it is breakfast here....

[eris2323]

You seem to think so.

btw - I will break this down for you once again, but in different terms - the numbers are not imaginary - rather based upon scientific analysis of existing albeit imperfect information.

You are making it sound like bistromathics :EEK: was involved. Quite untrue.

I simply think your sources of information are flawed, and your proposed system is bad.

Now, I also think you are trying to bury the people who are opposed to your system with a new full page post of a different color every few hours - and just generating text to fill the buffer, and cover it all up.

Why not let it rest, and let some other people respond to your proposal; so far, no one I have seen is interested in it, and you keep adding subclauses to it for some reason, adding new points to the bottom, adding new workload, and confusing the issue.

This thread is about the guild renown system, not really about a 'guild message board system' 'guild facebook system' or 'guild buff discussion' Why add those in?

[Auralana7214]

snip...Well add and repost.

Please just edit the original. I know you want people to read your posts, but after the so many times, it just seems a little silly.

I like the current system, but I am an officer of Griffon's Nest, so I suppose my opinion doesn't matter, but I'll give it anyway.

IMO, Guilds should be about gathering a force of people to socialize and play with. It's fine if you want a small guild, but you should have a smaller amount of renown IMHO. If you want more renown, invite more people.

I don't envy the devs and don't blame them for not wanting to touch this subject again until there is a really good well thought out solution. People are going to hate the system no matter what they do. They changed the system the last time because it was so obviously ridiculous the way it was.

Before the change in the system, guilds had to downsize in order to move up in levels. That's just wrong and anything that moves us back in that direction, I would be against. This is an MMO.

PS, I will consider reading the next one if you post it in pink.

[Nestroy]

Please just edit the original. I know you want people to read your posts, but after the so many times, it just seems a little silly.

I like the current system, but I am an officer of Griffon's Nest, so I suppose my opinion doesn't matter, but I'll give it anyway.

IMO, Guilds should be about gathering a force of people to socialize and play with. It's fine if you want a small guild, but you should have a smaller amount of renown IMHO. If you want more renown, invite more people.

I don't envy the devs and don't blame them for not wanting to touch this subject again until there is a really good well thought out solution. People are going to hate the system no matter what they do. They changed the system the last time because it was so obviously ridiculous the way it was.

Before the change in the system, guilds had to downsize in order to move up in levels. That's just wrong and anything that moves us back in that direction, I would be against. This is an MMO.

PS, I will consider reading the next one if you post it in pink.

I hate those color games, sorry!

Regarding the UurlockYgmeov Ideas, I do not hate them exactly, but I am realist enough to be sure that these Ideas will NEVER get implemented. Any system more complex than setting some global variables or playing with x % will not get done. Simple as that. Too expensive to develop, not enough points / shards to sell.

Any idea must be either very simple to implement or be a cear-cut cash cow. Please try to stay to these lines - then at least that would have any possibility to get done.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I hate those color games, sorry!

As do I Nestroy. I choose dark green to keep it noticeable, and was only posting it when it was updated or the forum had grown stale (no posts for several days - which means death on the forums)

Any system more complex than setting some global variables or playing with x % will not get done.

The core concept of the proposal is just that - changing several static variables and adjusting several formulas. Simple as, well, can't get much simpler.

The entire proposal is listed from highest priority to least. After the core concepts the rest are nice but just there because they were suggested here in this forum and good to keep ideas living.

IMO, Guilds should be about gathering a force of people to socialize and play with. It's fine if you want a small guild, but you should have a smaller amount of renown IMHO. If you want more renown, invite more people.

Agree - if a guild want to level faster - then it must earn more renown faster. That usually means more members, or more activity from existing members. That is just common sense.


don't know exactly what you mean by 'smaller amount of renown' so I can't respond to that.

As far as style of play for your guild - nice - however, the system has to allow for all different types of guilds.

Before the change in the system, guilds had to downsize in order to move up in levels. That's just wrong and anything that moves us back in that direction, I would be against. This is an MMO.

This is still happening - just not for the larger guilds. Small guilds are being forced to do it and so are medium sized guilds. I agree that this is a travesty and is just wrong.

The proposal moves the renown decay away from it by almost eliminating the impetus completely.

PS, I will consider reading the next one if you post it in pink.

Hot pink? Gotcha! (some pink that is at least readable) (the Pantone™ Process Blue was a mistake )

[Charononus]

As do I Nestroy. I choose dark green to keep it noticeable, and was only posting it when it was updated or the forum had grown stale (no posts for several days - which means death on the forums)



The core concept of the proposal is just that - changing several static variables and adjusting several formulas. Simple as, well, can't get much simpler.

The entire proposal is listed from highest priority to least. After the core concepts the rest are nice but just there because they were suggested here in this forum and good to keep ideas living.


Agree - if a guild want to level faster - then it must earn more renown faster. That usually means more members, or more activity from existing members. That is just common sense.


don't know exactly what you mean by 'smaller amount of renown' so I can't respond to that.

As far as style of play for your guild - nice - however, the system has to allow for all different types of guilds.


This is still happening - just not for the larger guilds. Small guilds are being forced to do it and so are medium sized guilds. I agree that this is a travesty and is just wrong.

The proposal moves the renown decay away from it by almost eliminating the impetus completely.


Hot pink? Gotcha! (some pink that is at least readable) (the Pantone™ Process Blue was a mistake )

I think you have completely and utterly failed to comprehend the current system if you think booting someone currently helps a small or medium guild. Recruitment helps not booting, that was the point to it. Please try to understand the current system before posting any more harmful ideas.

[Gremmlynn]

Which is also their right in DDO. I know of many one person guilds that are doing well.

In any case - that has nothing to do with Renown Decay.

Kobold says 'SHIIIIINNNNEEEEEYYYYYY' and looks at the king.

It does when you are trying to design a system that balances the "me and the 5 other people I never see but who happened to take guild invites when offered" guilds to guilds that actually work at being successful social networks in a way that's "fair".

I agree that it is their right. I just don't agree that it is their right that the system be set up to ensure they succeed at it. Those kings that attract quality nobles and administer their kingdoms in a way that makes commoners want to be subjects should be the kings that succeed, regardless whether they actually allow those commoners to be subjects (though the system should be set up to give then an incentive to want to). Those kings who just fill out a name on a guild charter and just expect the system to take care of the rest shouldn't IMO.

The fact that there are one man guilds that are doing well just points out that the system, if anything, is currently pretty generous.

[Gremmlynn]

Hopefully, the decay decrease can be extended to include those tiny guilds with 10 players or less that have not received any decay relief yet, but even if it cannot they will still be better off than they were under the old decay system because of the added ways to earn renown.

This seems simple enough. Simply go to a formula of Guild size=active player/3(drop fractions) min:2/max:10. This allows guilds relief without being punitive to adding new members. It also doesn't punish those guilds that give a home to players who aren't into the whole guild leveling game.

I'll even go as far as partially supporting one of Uur's suggestion with the 2 day inactive counter, though with the much simpler activation flag of "earning guild renown" to be considered active (all the other hair splitting is just unnecessary detail that adds little to making the system work, but potentially a lot of misunderstanding and confusion IMO- I'm guessing the reason for it's inclusion, and a major reason I'd like to see it excluded, is to make it easy for those 5 and fewer man guilds to maintain dummy accounts to stay at the 6 member sweet spot).

[Gremmlynn]

If a guild wishes to be a VIP only guild, well it is their right and they should be able to do it (personally don't like it - but it is their right - as long as they communicate that requirement up front, and fairly apply said requirement); but they will have fun trying to ascertain the VIP status of all their accounts.

Rule X: All potential members are to Email screen shots of their character selection screen to the guild administrator at X@X.X to prove account status before they will be considered for membership. Standard practice in guild v guild centric games to keep spies and the like out.

[Gremmlynn]

Hurting the majority to help the minority is not only unfair, but just plain wrong and selfish.

I fail to see how the current system hurt anyone. Nobody had there decay increased.

[Gremmlynn]

blah blah blah

Same old same old.

I think you are the one who is suffering from not seeing the forest for the trees.

You have stated things along the lines of social players can play in social guilds that don't care about levels without thinking how that forces every player to define themselves as well as segregate along those lines. It also doesn't take into account the how level of play activity likely plays a part in all this. To me this just leads to most of the really active players being in small focused guilds, self segregating as that is what your system encourages. While casual players end up in guilds with other casual players wondering why nobody every seems to be on-line when they log in, before logging off due to nobody being online.

You are taking one sub-set of data, purposing changes to make it come out how you feel it should and not giving a thought about how those changes mess up other, IMO more important, things.

[Gremmlynn]

I will still not support your suggest proposal, as I feel it is based on flawed data and made up numbers.

Is there really any need to keep re-posting this multiple times a day in different colors?

Do you think simply repeating yourself and being annoying will help your cause?

Personally, I'm starting to believe it's based on imperfect data that's being filtered to support his position as well as agenda and that the reposing is an attempt to try to shout down all those who see what harm his system would do to that majority of players he wants to be seen as championing. When in fact all it does is give the most active and effective leaders the incentive to cherry pick the most active players into their power guilds and leaves the casual players to their own dysfunctional guilds with ineffective leadership that there lack of dedication and hard work seems to for earn them.

Personally, I play to have fun and the more the game forces me to work or play the game on it's schedule to do so. the less inclined I am to pay for the privilege, or even play at all. But I'm pretty casual, so what do I know?

[UurlockYgmeov]

their own dysfunctional guilds with ineffective leadership that there lack of dedication and hard work seems to for earn them.

Kindly stop flinging mud

IMHO You are hiding your own dysfunctionality and lack of effort to disprove data with fact, by slinging bigoted and wildly inaccurate mud about guilds that aren't your guilds size and play style.

This is proven definitely by your choosing to blatantly ignore 99.9999999^% of what is posted to refute your mud.

This is proven even more by your refusal to use multiquote or to combine multiple sequential postings into one.

Start posting facts instead of just calling guilds dysfunctional because they don't fit your very walleyed tunnel-visioned view of the world.

Guilds come in all flavors, sizes, styles, and membership commitment levels. They all have the right to do as they wish as long as they don't violate the EULA.

If a guild insists on all members playing at the same time so be it; will they boot if your play schedule is diametrically opposite to the bulk of the other players? Probably not because what time of the day you play doesn't affect earning renown or renown decay in any shape way or form.

If a guild clearly states that it is only for Spanish speakers, they have that right and have the right to only invite those who speak Spanish. Common Sense? Common Purpose (Allowing for social interaction for those who speak a common language). Do you also find fault in this guild style?

If a guild insists on only uber-active members - then that is their right as long as they are up front about it and again don't violate the terms of the EULA. You might not like it (you don't as you have clearly and repeatedly stated time and time again).

If a guild transitions to an active member only guild - that again is their right. Is it nice, and politically correct? Maybe, maybe not. The only thing Turbine should do about it is minimize the stimulus (something that rouses or incites to activity) that are unfair - player activity level.

If a guild chooses to only accept VIP's that is their choice, as also is a guild that prohibits VIP's and another that tells you that if your character dies, you must delete instantly.

You don't get to decide for anyone other your you how to run their guild. Sorry Charlie the Kobold - you aren't the Union Boss.

All guilds CAN (as in having the POSSIBILITY) reach 100 through work and time, but NOT ALL GUILDS WILL (as having the PROBABILITY) due to many factors. A guild achieving level 100 is possible, but not always likely to happen. This probability can be changed by many factors.

As stated elsewhere - if a guild wants to earn renown faster, there are only three possible ways: more members, more activity, or more elixirs (or any and all combinations of the above).

So spoken in even simpler terms: all guilds possibly can achieve level 100 someday through hard work and time; most won't because they just don't have enough players, or aren't active enough to do it. Does that make them dysfunctional or lacking leadership? Absolutely Not.

A small guild of weekend warriors can achieve level 100 someday - even if they don't ever talk to one another and play at different times. If you don't approve of that style guild, then don't join or leave it or fix it.

You advocate little to no decay and that supports exactly what you claim to not want - see quote of your own words above.

I don't like decay - and support Turbine removing it completely; but in the probably likelihood that Turbine insists on decay remaining - then decay must be assigned fairly and must be assigned based upon level and active member count in order to be fair. If you quote this line you must quote it all.

I think you have completely and utterly failed to comprehend the current system if you think booting someone currently helps a small or medium guild.

Actually - booting can and often does help small and medium guilds. Kindly review the guild renown system.

try to understand the current system before posting

Please kindly understand the renown system before telling others that they don't understand the renown system.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I think you have completely and utterly failed to comprehend the current system if you think booting someone currently helps a small or medium guild.

Actually - booting can and often does help small and medium guilds. Kindly review the guild renown system.

try to understand the current system before posting

Please kindly understand the renown system before telling others that they don't understand the renown system.

[Auralana7214]

So spoken in even simpler terms: all guilds possibly can achieve level 100 someday through hard work and time; most won't because they just don't have enough players, or aren't active enough to do it. Does that make them dysfunctional or lacking leadership?

I think you've hit the nail on the head! The answer is yes. If your goal is level 100 and you are not moving in that direction, I would say your guild is either dysfunctional or lacking leadership.

If your goal is a small guild of friends, then I would say no, your guild is not dysfunctional or lacking leadership. It depends on what you want.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I think you've hit the nail on the head! The answer is yes. If your goal is level 100 and you are not moving in that direction, I would say your guild is either dysfunctional or lacking leadership.

If your goal is a small guild of friends, then I would say no, your guild is not dysfunctional or lacking leadership. It depends on what you want.

+1 Agree.

[eris2323]

Kindly stop flinging mud

IMHO You are hiding your own dysfunctionality and lack of effort to disprove data with fact, by slinging bigoted and wildly inaccurate mud about guilds that aren't your guilds size and play style.

This is proven definitely by your choosing to blatantly ignore 99.9999999^% of what is posted to refute your mud.

This is proven even more by your refusal to use multiquote or to combine multiple sequential postings into one.

Start posting facts instead of just calling guilds dysfunctional because they don't fit your very walleyed tunnel-visioned view of the world.

Guilds come in all flavors, sizes, styles, and membership commitment levels. They all have the right to do as they wish as long as they don't violate the EULA.

If a guild insists on all members playing at the same time so be it; will they boot if your play schedule is diametrically opposite to the bulk of the other players? Probably not because what time of the day you play doesn't affect earning renown or renown decay in any shape way or form.

If a guild clearly states that it is only for Spanish speakers, they have that right and have the right to only invite those who speak Spanish. Common Sense? Common Purpose (Allowing for social interaction for those who speak a common language). Do you also find fault in this guild style?

If a guild insists on only uber-active members - then that is their right as long as they are up front about it and again don't violate the terms of the EULA. You might not like it (you don't as you have clearly and repeatedly stated time and time again).

If a guild transitions to an active member only guild - that again is their right. Is it nice, and politically correct? Maybe, maybe not. The only thing Turbine should do about it is minimize the stimulus (something that rouses or incites to activity) that are unfair - player activity level.

If a guild chooses to only accept VIP's that is their choice, as also is a guild that prohibits VIP's and another that tells you that if your character dies, you must delete instantly.

You don't get to decide for anyone other your you how to run their guild. Sorry Charlie the Kobold - you aren't the Union Boss.

All guilds CAN (as in having the POSSIBILITY) reach 100 through work and time, but NOT ALL GUILDS WILL (as having the PROBABILITY) due to many factors. A guild achieving level 100 is possible, but not always likely to happen. This probability can be changed by many factors.

As stated elsewhere - if a guild wants to earn renown faster, there are only three possible ways: more members, more activity, or more elixirs (or any and all combinations of the above).

So spoken in even simpler terms: all guilds possibly can achieve level 100 someday through hard work and time; most won't because they just don't have enough players, or aren't active enough to do it. Does that make them dysfunctional or lacking leadership? Absolutely Not.

A small guild of weekend warriors can achieve level 100 someday - even if they don't ever talk to one another and play at different times. If you don't approve of that style guild, then don't join or leave it or fix it.

You advocate little to no decay and that supports exactly what you claim to not want - see quote of your own words above.

I don't like decay - and support Turbine removing it completely; but in the probably likelihood that Turbine insists on decay remaining - then decay must be assigned fairly and must be assigned based upon level and active member count in order to be fair. If you quote this line you must quote it all.


Actually - booting can and often does help small and medium guilds. Kindly review the guild renown system.


Please kindly understand the renown system before telling others that they don't understand the renown system.

We are not required to use a 'multi-quoting' system. Sorry if that bothers you, but there are no forum rules stating that we must reply in ways you approve of.

Why are you being so blatantly hostile to our other forum members?

Anyway, you have made your proposal - multiple people oppose it.

Any small or medium guild that is silly enough to be booting members under this new system, our guild has recently passed level 80 - our bigger ship is in place, and we're almost always looking for new members... come find a home in Griffon's Nest - Sarlona!

We're not silly enough to boot people under this new system.

[eris2323]

I think you've hit the nail on the head! The answer is yes. If your goal is level 100 and you are not moving in that direction, I would say your guild is either dysfunctional or lacking leadership.

If your goal is a small guild of friends, then I would say no, your guild is not dysfunctional or lacking leadership. It depends on what you want.

Exactly.

Since one player guilds are doing fine, and there are multiple high-level small guilds; that DOES mean that any current guild who is not gaining levels to their satisfaction has bad leadership.

On the other hand, those that just don't care about guild levels and only care about having a small guild of friends - well, they don't care, they're not here complaining about it. As long as they accept that fact, their leadership is NOT dysfunctional.

I'm not sure why people expect to be able to have almost no players in their guild and yet expect to do well... you're a guild with no players, that makes no sense...

Helping those guilds out with yet another handout sullies the achievement of all who actually worked with the system, instead of simply complaining that they can't get their 2 person guild to 100 and please change it devs because me and my pal deserve the exact same benefits as 100 people working towards a common goal.

I do not agree with that outlook.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I take offence to this. Why they are allowing you to continually insult people and get away it I'm not sure, but....
Reported.

If you take offense to people for politely telling you that my opinion (often supported by your own words) is wrong - then that is you opinion. So noted.

If you are insulted that is not the intention of my rhetoric. However, I will not apologize for debating for what many feel is fair and using your own words to prove you wrong.

Using an opponents own words against them (which you have also tried to do) is part of debate. We will not back down due to threats or bullying or mud slinging.

Have a lovely day! Wish you well! And gratz on the power leveling of your guild!