Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

Yep - decay, accidentally leaving guild (oops) and the guild's normal ebb and flow of comings and going.

Then it is no wonder your proposal is hopelessly skewed towards an easy button for solo guilds at the expense of large guilds.

[Charononus]

In a decay system, you can only have 2 possible outcomes. Either the system favors inclusion or it favors exclusion. It is not possible for it to be exactly balanced and neither favor inclusion nor favor exclusion, because as soon as it becomes impossible for players to earn negative net renown (after the decay for that player is subtracted), you are now favoring inclusion. And as long as it is possible for players to earn negative net renown, you are favoring exclusion. All players with negative net renown will be undesirable (from a strictly renown point of view) in all guilds, because they will reduce the amount of renown that the guild earns every day. That leads to a system that rewards guilds for shunning/kicking players that earn negative net renown. That is what the old system did and that is exactly why it was rejected.

Uwhatshisname's proposal favors exclusion like the old system did. The only difference is it will have fewer undesirable players. But there will still be some and the incentives will be just as strong to shun/kick them as it was in the old system. Adding players can hurt your guild with more decay so recruiting new players is dangerous and kicking the lowest earners is rewarded.

The current system favors inclusion, if you only look at decay. That is because players can't cost more in decay than they earn. That means that adding more members can never hurt your guild with more decay and kicking the lowest earners costs you renown versus just keeping them.

The point of all this is, you have to favor something. If the system is exclusive, like the old system and Uwhatshisname's proposal, you are favoring smaller guilds. If the system is inclusive you are favoring larger guilds. It is literally not possible to balance the two exactly because as soon as the lowest net renown earner goes from negative to zero, you jump to favoring inclusion and large guilds. But as long as it remains negative, you are favoring exclusion and small guilds.

So the question is which is better for the game? Inclusion or exclusion? I think it's pretty obvious. A system that rewards shunning/kicking a part of the player-base and discourages inviting new players, just does not make for a healthy gaming environment. On the other hand, a system that rewards players for joining forces with the other players on their server to work together toward a common goal (leveling up) is pretty much what an MMO should be about. But that's just my opinion.

Incredibly well said, I'd +1 but I must wait longer before passing rep to you again aparently.

Regardless of the merits of your proposal it will never be implemented. I would just get behind an idea like this:



Which helps gulds with less than 30 members without taking away the benefits that large guilds recently received. I have several friends in a large guild on Sarlona that was stuck @ around 60 for a long time until this change in October. Now they are 81 and proud of their accomplishment. I think any proposals should not increase the decay of any other guild from what it is now. I see no reason to see this guild move backwards.

Just keep in mind that if you get behind this proposal a few people will argue against it because their goal isn't to help form a good system, but to ensure the system continues to benefit only one guild size. Just ignore them because responding doesn't help anyhow.

All guilds should be able to advance. My guild is benefitting (slightly but still it helped) from the recent renown boost the devs added (possibly unintentionally and some only temporary), however, this won't help all guilds. I run with many people from small casual (and or family) guilds. The system is not working for them due to high decay. With all the talk about the problem with the old system was that it was calculated on the # of accounts, the real issue was actually [B]high decay]/B]. The system never encouraged anyone to shun or boot casuals. in fact guilds could have bene happy to stall at 60/70/80 but they wanted to advance just like tiny guilds do now. The problem was that large guilds couldn't advance due to high decay so they tried to work-around the system by minimizing players that didn't produce much net renown.

I like the above proposal with no other changes as he stated. Others have suggested removing small guild bonus. I see removing small guild bonus as a huge negative because it makes it hard for start-up guilds to advance. All guilds start with exactly 1 player and grow at different rates and speeds from there. As others have pointed out, it isn't easy for start-up guilds to recruit because they have less to offer than more established high level guilds. It's very common for people to join a start-up guild and then leave it for a higher level guild. The game shouldn't discourage new players and guilds. Removing small guild bonus would do exactly this and accomplish nothing.

It's simple, only benefits and doesn't harm, and only the true haters would be against such an idea.

I can't speak for others but I think I was one of the first lately to mention the small guild bonus. I probably should have used a /sarcasm tag with it, because I was trying to illustrate how bad going back to a members hurt a guild system would be.

[eris2323]

Great starting point! where's the rest? Kindly include it next time as well.

Says exactly the truth and shows no favoritism unlike the what we have now. 67500 decay for all guild at level 100? give me a break! ridiculous.

While I *MAY* agree that 67500 is too high, 250 is way too low.

Why would you punish large guilds and give such an unfair advantage to people who are refusing to play with the system as is; all they want is the rules to change to benefit them. They want a level 100 guild, with no work, and no upkeep.

If they get that, I want it too. 250 renown decay for our large guild at level 100. Why should solo players get such an unreasonable advantage in the system?

His proposal is nothing more than an attempt to help his own guild out. It panders to tiny and small guilds, and attempts to bring back a mechanic that was almost universally hated, and affected the game in a negative way.

His other proposal have NOTHING to do with a renown and decay discussion, really. They should be in their own suggestion forum.

But from what I remember, he wanted a complete re-do of the guild communication system, AND he wanted extra ship buffs, 30 hit points or 80 spell points to every character!

Which I believe is overpowered to begin with; it's probably better he removes those and puts them in their own suggestions, so as not to bring this topic totally off the topic of renown and decay, and onto 'which ship buffs are too powerful'

[Lowz]

I can't speak for others but I think I was one of the first lately to mention the small guild bonus. I probably should have used a /sarcasm tag with it, because I was trying to illustrate how bad going back to a members hurt a guild system would be.

The small guild bonus is only a tiny factor. That doesn't offset the 67500 at level 100 for a small guild. Oh... now it is only 16875 per day for a 6 man guild. please, absolute bunk.

[Charononus]

The small guild bonus is only a tiny factor. That doesn't offset the 67500 at level 100 for a small guild. Oh... now it is only 16875 per day for a 6 man guild. please, absolute bunk.

You keep mentioning that, funny thing is that there were/are several small guilds that held level 100 even before the previous change, yes they were powergamers and were gaming the system but it means it can be done. Before the change there were ZERO level 100 large guilds. Now I'm not saying this to say small guilds shouldn't get a deduction, they should but raising decay on large guilds sorry that's the work of a cooperate saboteur, not someone trying to get a better system.

[eris2323]

You keep mentioning that, funny thing is that there were/are several small guilds that held level 100 even before the previous change, yes they were powergamers and were gaming the system but it means it can be done. Before the change there were ZERO level 100 large guilds. Now I'm not saying this to say small guilds shouldn't get a deduction, they should but raising decay on large guilds sorry that's the work of a cooperate saboteur, not someone trying to get a better system.

Exactly.

There were quite a few 6 person and smaller guilds hitting level 100 under the old system; seems like they never had a problem.

Seems to me if a guild is having that much problems, they need to recruit more than one person as a renown gatherer... I mean, other small and tiny guilds hit 100 and stay there, what's wrong with the ones who can't?

[eris2323]

nice!

btw - I see lots of /squelched posts....

Squelch those who disagree with you - that's a wonderful way to have a conversation. "Your way or the high-way" right?

I'm not sure what makes you think your proposal is the solution, but it isn't, and squelching those who point out the flaws isn't going to really help, because I'll just keep posting and making sure all the others who haven't squelched me are aware this is just a selfish plan on your part to help your guild.

Anyway, I guess it's pretty obvious to most that your system is nothing more than a transparent attempt to help out your own tiny guild, at the expense of large guilds, and you don't have the experience with a large guild to see what kind of harm your suggestions would bring about.

I mean, really. You want your solo guild to be level 100, I get it - but why bring back an unpopular mechanic like that, solely to hurt the large guilds and their player base?

I say thee nay.

[Charononus]

Exactly.

There were quite a few 6 person and smaller guilds hitting level 100 under the old system; seems like they never had a problem.

Seems to me if a guild is having that much problems, they need to recruit more than one person as a renown gatherer... I mean, other small and tiny guilds hit 100 and stay there, what's wrong with the ones who can't?

Right assuming their numbers are right 67500 decay at level 100.

with 6 people that's 11250 decay per day. If I didn't earn that much renown in a day it means I didn't log on that day to be honest. Not even factoring in the small guild bonus.

[Lowz]

Exactly.

There were quite a few 6 person and smaller guilds hitting level 100 under the old system; seems like they never had a problem.

Seems to me if a guild is having that much problems, they need to recruit more than one person as a renown gatherer... I mean, other small and tiny guilds hit 100 and stay there, what's wrong with the ones who can't?

Well - because under the last system a guild with less than 10 members actually had less decay than under this broken system we have now, up to half as much.

Proof - all I see in game now is large guilds hitting 60, 70, 80....

It isn't about the guilds - it is about the broken system showing favor to the big guilds. In real world terms it is called a monopoly - and is entirely not good in the long run for the consumers (players). In this current system there is no possible conceivable way a medium or smaller guild which is inclusive and includes weekend warriors and casual players can get above the mid 80's in level, and only that high with extreme effort and lots of elixirs.

No you don't see it - the trend is happening - the medium and smaller guilds are either being forced to convert to the massive guild or wither and die because of sheer frustration. That is complete favoritism.

[eris2323]

Right assuming their numbers are right 67500 decay at level 100.

with 6 people that's 11250 decay per day. If I didn't earn that much renown in a day it means I didn't log on that day to be honest. Not even factoring in the small guild bonus.

Wow. I applaud your guild ethics then, that's a large amount of renown per day you were making, and obviously you would be deserving of that guild level after making that much renown per day.

It seems like SOME guilds can handle the system and earn renown... the rest just want FREE STUFF.

If we're giving out free stuff devs, can I have free exps? I'm sick of the 16-20 grind for tr's.

[eris2323]

Well - because under the last system a guild with less than 10 members actually had less decay than under this broken system we have now, up to half as much.

Proof - all I see in game now is large guilds hitting 60, 70, 80....

It isn't about the guilds - it is about the broken system showing favor to the big guilds. In real world terms it is called a monopoly - and is entirely not good in the long run for the consumers (players). In this current system there is no possible conceivable way a medium or smaller guild which is inclusive and includes weekend warriors and casual players can get above the mid 80's in level, and only that high with extreme effort and lots of elixirs.

No you don't see it - the trend is happening - the medium and smaller guilds are either being forced to convert to the massive guild or wither and die because of sheer frustration. That is complete favoritism.

Yeah, you're seeing guilds gain levels because we were penalized for YEARS with the old system that counted players as a form of currency, and taxed you based on those players.

I'm not sure why you want an easy button, I hear there are many solo and small guilds doing well, perhaps you simply aren't playing enough DDO?

So what you're basically saying is you are jealous that large guilds are finally getting some ground - and you want to take that away, and you want a server-wide return to the attitude of 'every player costs renown'. ANd you really don't care who if affects, or how many it affects, as long as you and/or your group of 3 friends get a break.

[Lowz]

Right assuming their numbers are right 67500 decay at level 100.

with 6 people that's 11250 decay per day. If I didn't earn that much renown in a day it means I didn't log on that day to be honest. Not even factoring in the small guild bonus.

actually wrong - cut that in half. six account guild with a modified account size of six: minimum 10 so 33750 per day - divided by 6 is 5625, with a size bonus (max one because of the number) that is just over 1400 per day per account. Doable.

Now it is 67500 - so double the decay, so 11250. Divide 11250 by the six and the include the size bonus (max) and you get over 2812 - so far less doable.

Meanwhile a guild with 1000 members only has to come up with 67.5 renown per account to handle decay. lmfao... that is over 4167% more decay per member for the little guy. monopoly!

[eris2323]

Perhaps if some guild leaders were able to put in some time to schedule guild events, get to know some friends, set up a website or something, perhaps have a teamspeak - maybe then there'd be a reason for people to join your small guild?

Or they could just do what they're doing now - do nothing, expect results with no players, and get bitter and angry towards those who DO play with groups of people, and put some work into actually running a guild...

[Charononus]

Wow. I applaud your guild ethics then, that's a large amount of renown per day you were making, and obviously you would be deserving of that guild level after making that much renown per day.

It seems like SOME guilds can handle the system and earn renown... the rest just want FREE STUFF.

If we're giving out free stuff devs, can I have free exps? I'm sick of the 16-20 grind for tr's.

Oh I'm in a large guild, I just wanted to point out the level 100 decay they were talking about isn't that bad, it would be a rare day for me personally not to pull that much in a day. That said I don't even care about renown, I'm not burning a potion for it or anything else just looting chests, killing things, and getting xp. For me a guild is more about company, setting up guild events such as raids, and conversation. I wouldn't join a small guild because you really don't have those things. Point is though that I play almost every day and can easily pull that renown amount.

[eris2323]

Oh I'm in a large guild, I just wanted to point out the level 100 decay they were talking about isn't that bad, it would be a rare day for me personally not to pull that much in a day. That said I don't even care about renown, I'm not burning a potion for it or anything else just looting chests, killing things, and getting xp. For me a guild is more about company, setting up guild events such as raids, and conversation. I wouldn't join a small guild because you really don't have those things. Point is though that I play almost every day and can easily pull that renown amount.

That is still a sick amount of renown to pull per day, I wish all of these solo and/or two players guilds had a player like you.

Except I realize that small and tiny and 1 person guilds really DO add nothing to the table, for people who want to play with other people.

No one will ever be online, unless times sync up, and can't even fill a 12 person raid once a week without outside blood.

So for a large portion of people - yeah, unless they want to be king, a tiny or small guild will NOT meet their needs.

Don't blame the other people for not wanting to play in your tiny guild. Do something to make your guild more attractive.

[Charononus]

actually wrong - cut that in half. six account guild with a modified account size of six: minimum 10 so 33750 per day - divided by 6 is 5625, with a size bonus (max one because of the number) that is just over 1400 per day per account. Doable.

Now it is 67500 - so double the decay, so 11250. Divide 11250 by the six and the include the size bonus (max) and you get over 2812 - so far less doable.

Meanwhile a guild with 1000 members only has to come up with 67.5 renown per account to handle decay. lmfao... that is over 4167% more decay per member for the little guy. monopoly!

I was taking your number that a level 100 guild has to pay 67500 decay per day at the moment. 67500/6=11250 so that would be how much decay I would face to make sure the guild didn't backslide if everyone pulled their weight. I'm saying I can do that with no size bonus.

[eris2323]

Ad hoc ergo promptus hoc - because large guilds were penalized in the past doesn't give them the right to insist on penalizing everyone else going forward. That is just wrong.

The medium and smaller guilds that are doing well now are probably just not hitting the wall around level 75 - that gets progressively steeper.

So you want to punish everyone else because you were hurt in the past and maintain a monopoly that is going to crush the guild system? You make the OPEC and the Standard Oil Company proud!

I don't want easy - I want fair without favoritism and monopolies - to be able to play with who I want - in a guild I want - of any size, and have a chance that if active enough and enough time we can progress and grow.

Common thing on the channels in game: want an invite to a guild with +2; you tell people you are in a small casual, laid back guild of mature adults and all they hear now is small and goodbye.

Everyone wants to be in a large guild because that is where favoritism is.

If you can't find players for your guild, perhaps you are not leading your guild properly.

If you can't find players for your guild, perhaps your guild is not as popular a format as you'd like to think it is.

If you can't find players for your guild - don't blame us for actually doing the work to get to where we are.

Perhaps people really do want to play with other players in their guild - in this multi player online game.

I mean, give anyone the choice - do they want a tiny, laid back guild with 3 members who are casual and mature... or would they rather a large, laid back guild, with 300 members, who are casual and/or powergames and mature, and there are always people to play with?

Most, I think - would choose to play with others.

[Lowz]

Except I realize that small and tiny and 1 person guilds really DO add nothing to the table, for people who want to play with other people.

No one will ever be online, unless times sync up, and can't even fill a 12 person raid once a week without outside blood.

and many people who play with other people are in medium and smaller guilds. In fact the majority of guilds (the number grows smaller every day) are medium and smaller, that also includes the majority of players in guilds.

so to say a guild adds nothing to the game is saying that the majority of players don't add anything to the game.

many players don't care about who they pug with - or being in a static set raid.... they just might like the people they are in the guild with.

Ad hoc ergo promptus hoc - because large guilds were penalized in the past doesn't give them the right to insist on penalizing everyone else going forward. That is just wrong.

The medium and smaller guilds that are doing well now are probably just not hitting the wall around level 75 - that gets progressively steeper.

So you want to punish everyone else because you were hurt in the past and maintain a monopoly that is going to crush the guild system? You make the OPEC and the Standard Oil Company proud!

I don't want easy - I want fair without favoritism and monopolies - to be able to play with who I want - in a guild I want - of any size, and have a chance that if active enough and enough time we can progress and grow.

Common thing on the channels in game: want an invite to a guild with +2; you tell people you are in a small casual, laid back guild of mature adults and all they hear now is small and goodbye.

Everyone wants to be in a large guild because that is where favoritism is.

[eris2323]

and many people who play with other people are in medium and smaller guilds. In fact the majority of guilds (the number grows smaller every day) are medium and smaller, that also includes the majority of players in guilds.

so to say a guild adds nothing to the game is saying that the majority of players don't add anything to the game.

many players don't care about who they pug with - or being in a static set raid.... they just might like the people they are in the guild with.

But there are tonnes of medium sized guilds doing well, are you now claiming that both tiny, small, solo, and medium sized guilds are not able to gain levels?

I think that is untrue.

I dunno, give me the choice of 2 players in a guild, and 200 players in a guild, and I'm going to go with the group that obviously puts more work into it.

[eris2323]

This is about choice - and allowing players to make their own. No one should ever apologize for not fitting your cookie cutter method to guilds. Everyone should have the choice to be in a guild with they wish - because they wish - and not because the system is slanted or favors one style or size of guild.

Current and prevuious system did and does.

Future system won't and it should be uurlocks.

Uurlock's idea is the most sound all encompassing idea yet, still needs some work and polish, but yeah, it is fair and allows players to play the way they want and to play with the ones the want to play with without favor or slant.

If a better system than uurlocks comes forward then I will support it - but so far none has been forwarded that is.

Lets fix the system as completely as we can, if that means removing decay, all for it, if it means fair decay for all guilds based upon membership that earned renown that day, then that is what I will support.

Come up with a better solution that fixes all or at least most of the slant and favoritism and I will support it. So far you haven't, all you've done so far is to try to yell and scream so loud and so frequently that it has gotten you ignored but many, doesn't mean you are right or your cause is just, rather that you just scream the loudest and the most.

If it's about choice, why aren't people CHOOSING to join your tiny and small guild, and why are they CHOOSING to join large guilds, since all the large guilds are now recruiting again?


Are you perhaps just mad that people see no benefit in joining your guild, and that is why they are choosing something more to their liking?

Perhaps you should work on making your guild more attractive to others.

Seems to me that the proposal wants to remove that choice, and bring back a very bad mechanism.

Seems to me that people right now are choosing exactly what they want; a large guild, with many players online, and a social atmosphere.

Those that want something different - well, seems to me that the system works for some people, and not others - perhaps those it's not working for simply need to work harder, or change their expectations.