Guild Renown Changes

[Enoach]

We never left decay per account - just now the large guilds don't feel it.

Examples:

• ten account level 100 guild : 6,750 decay per account.
• one-hundred account level 100 guild: 675 decay per account
• one-thousand account level 100 guild: 67.5 decay per account.

That is decay per account. the temporary system is as broken as the old system.

Now lets find a solution rather than pointing fingers and feeding the trolls.

I think the main hang-up here is that the Decay Amount Total is no longer the sum of per Account. It can still be divided up on an Account Basis. Which does show a bit of an advantage to larger "Account" guilds because they have more "hands".

However, I've pointed this out at the beginning of this thread when another posted numbers like this. To fairly represent the numbers you need to consider the "Renown Adjustment".

1 150%
2 180%
3 210%
4 240%
5 270%
6 300%
7 285%
8 270%
9 255%
10 240%

Your example of 10 Account Guild with a total of 67,500 Decay a day actually requires pulling 2,812.5 Renown per day per Account. While still almost 5x per account more than a 100 Account Guild it is still 562.5 renown per account Less than a 20 Account Guild which needs 3,375.

I'm utilizing the 20 Account Adjusted Guild Size as that appears to be the point Turbine has set as a baseline.

Under the Current System with everyone having the same Decay Amount at any level. It appears that Guild Sizes of 8 - 10 Actually fair better than 20 Account Guilds, with 6 and 7 Account Guilds fairing just slightly worse on a Guild Renown to Account Ratio requirement to cover Decay.

The main sticking point is what Size should be the "Average" renown earner. I don't know what the Average Account size is per Guild on a Server. I'm pretty sure that we don't have any 1,000 Account Guilds, but I could see we may have a few in the 500 range - but I would be inclined more towards Large Guilds actually having somewhere between 250 to 300 Individual Accounts at any given time.

[Nestroy]

So.... wait... now you want people to actually lose their guilds if they go too casual?

This is a disgusting proposal, and I will not support that either.

That would also actively harm the game and the social atmosphere.

It actually works to destroy solo guilds entirely - woops, I got involved with another game, there goes my guild, forever. Never mind the fact that someone might have paid money for their guild, their ship; now you want to impose your own morality of 'you must play or there goes your guild'

You just can't seem to stop latching onto bad ideas.

The continued attacks by you on large guilds, medium guilds, and now towards tiny and solo guilds is baffling; I request you stop attacking everyones playstyle and insisting we play the same way you do.

The original idea some time back was going along more moderate lines actually. The orignal idea was to give decay any purpose.

So no decay for any active guild regardless of size and level as long as any member logs in any time before going inactive. So only truely inactive guilds would get the decay. Inactivity in the original idea would have followed the 1-month policy for accounts.

In the original idea, a guild would loose a certain ammount of decay equaling 1/12th of total renown before going inactive. So the guild would need one year to reach exactly zero renown. Upon reaching zero renown after one full year of inactivity the guild would be officially dissolved and would not eat up resources on the server, from repopulating ships to being the last guild on the leaderboards.

Of course the guild would only be marked "dissolved" and the regular scripts would not repopulate the guild on the server. Upon any former account from that guild entering the game again, there could be a script safeguard reopening the guild with whatever status the DEVs would deem right for a guild nobody had cared about for at least one year.

But then again, this was proposed when there was the big discussion about decay in general when even the great guilds did battle the decay system.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Actually, I don't have a problem with this. If no player in the guild even logs in once in an entire month, then that guild is effectively a dead guild. I see no good reason to perpetuate dead guilds. If a member of such a dead guild comes back to DDO, then they can join another guild or buy a new guild charter and start over. IMO, we already have far too many dead guilds in this game. If there is great objection from the solo guild crowd, then I could see maybe extending the time limit to 2 or 3 months, but for me 1 month seems fine.

Am thinking of having the decay increase over time - but we need to allow for a little longer period of time - just in case the entire guild was say a family and they went on a cruise that got stuck in Sint Maartin.. :P

or was a soccer team on a road trip and they got stuck in the middle of Montana surrounded by halfling paladins and barbarians!

But slowly increasing the decay after no logins after a month (start slowly) and allow for the guild to totally slip away after six months (whatever is the time frame for the game to archive characters???)

The game mechanic is simple - fewer dead guilds (guilds without members) to clog the servers up during maintenance and reboots (repopulate ships).

Still might want to have a grandfather clause so existing guilds don't take offense - but all new guilds agree that if your guild has no members or is inactive for xxx period of time - it will atrophy (faster and faster) until it goes *poof*.

[UurlockYgmeov]

First, my suggestion of having a minimum net decay of zero does not eliminate decay. You can still lose all of the renown you earned to decay, all the way down to zero.

You are arguing that the total amount that can be lost to decay in your plan as it is now (w/o my suggestion) is tiny. Logically that means that the difference between your plan with my suggestion and your plan without my suggestion must be just as tiny. If the difference really is as tiny as you claim, then why not just incorporate my suggestion? It would only reduce decay just a tiny bit more, by your own numbers, and it would eliminate the possibility that players might be shunned/kicked because they earned less renown than they cost in decay. Such a tiny difference in decay amount is surely worth not discriminating against casual & social players, isn't it?

what you are suggesting is a tax - so you might as well just reduce renown earned in general by 10% and that would have the same effect.

Tiny still equates difference, noticeable measurable difference.

But your suggestion would then increase the possibility of players being booted/shunned because they didn't earn enough renown. As I have stated - you cannot eliminate this completely because it is a human thing, all you can do is eliminate as much as you can by making the system fair and by eliminating the biggest causes of concern - the daily mail checker and social gamer (which I do all the time - log in and do mail / guild chat) and sometimes I get to play (depending upon lag and my internet connection)

You suggestion does that by eliminating decay. I say eliminating because the guild cannot decay because the only source of decay in your suggestion has been eliminated because your cannot be affected my more decay than you earn.

Let's chalk this one up to fundamental differences. I have added you new suggestion to the proposal - right after eliminate decay altogether.

[UurlockYgmeov]

I think the main hang-up here is that the Decay Amount Total is no longer the sum of per Account. It can still be divided up on an Account Basis. Which does show a bit of an advantage to larger "Account" guilds because they have more "hands".

However, I've pointed this out at the beginning of this thread when another posted numbers like this. To fairly represent the numbers you need to consider the "Renown Adjustment".

1 150%
2 180%
3 210%
4 240%
5 270%
6 300%
7 285%
8 270%
9 255%
10 240%

Your example of 10 Account Guild with a total of 67,500 Decay a day actually requires pulling 2,812.5 Renown per day per Account. While still almost 5x per account more than a 100 Account Guild it is still 562.5 renown per account Less than a 20 Account Guild which needs 3,375.

I'm utilizing the 20 Account Adjusted Guild Size as that appears to be the point Turbine has set as a baseline.

Under the Current System with everyone having the same Decay Amount at any level. It appears that Guild Sizes of 8 - 10 Actually fair better than 20 Account Guilds, with 6 and 7 Account Guilds fairing just slightly worse on a Guild Renown to Account Ratio requirement to cover Decay.

The main sticking point is what Size should be the "Average" renown earner. I don't know what the Average Account size is per Guild on a Server. I'm pretty sure that we don't have any 1,000 Account Guilds, but I could see we may have a few in the 500 range - but I would be inclined more towards Large Guilds actually having somewhere between 250 to 300 Individual Accounts at any given time.

I like your ideas and well said!

One person in this thread (name escapes me) said that they were part of a guild that had hit the hard cap on members, and now was having to pick and choose who to boot in order to allow in different accounts. (Question - is it a 1000 account cap or is it a 1000 character cap?)

Why add more complexity?

Can we just change the inactive threshold to 1 day instead of 30? This will assist all guilds near the 50 accounts and less immediately. Yes, the term should be renamed as well - but this helps without bias as well.

[Auralana7214]

Ah - another Griffon's Nest.

Pie charts don't work well when comparing these types of information. [colorful overposted words here]

I really just wanted pie, I didn't need to see your proposal again. I would call you names, but that is just unbecoming of a lady.

The fact that the post has been re-posted in order to spam this thread should not be allowed. The fact that you then put your post in chart form is ridiculous. The fact that you pm'd me after my previous comment is stalkerish.

I am another Griffon and the general consensus among our High Council is that the current renown system is working splendidly. I would only ask that whatever changes are made, please leave large guilds out of it. We have lost members over being stagnate in an MMO that is about bringing people together. That, in it's core, is wrong.

[Tshober]

But your suggestion would then increase the possibility of players being booted/shunned because they didn't earn enough renown. .

No. You are completely incorrect here. With my suggestion there would never be a case where a guild would benefit (with more renown) from kicking a player versus keeping that player. They would always gain more renown from keeping the player.

As long as you refuse to accept this, your plan will be taking us back to the problems of the old decay system. And I can never support that.

[UurlockYgmeov]

No. You are completely incorrect here. With my suggestion there would never be a case where a guild would benefit (with more renown) from kicking a player versus keeping that player. They would always gain more renown from keeping the player.

As long as you refuse to accept this, your plan will be taking us back to the problems of the old decay system. And I can never support that.

Fundamental differences. I accept that.

IMO Decay is a strategic thing - it has to have substance and teeth (just not with nasty, big, pointy teeth... MPATHG). Decay should be a factor, a game mechanic and should promote activity and log-ins.

Decay is what you pay the mistrals to herald your epic heroic brave deeds to the masses and what pays the captain to drive the ship, feeds the elemental engines, and keeps the deck scrubbed from all the creature companions without diapers. :P

[Tshober]

One person in this thread (name escapes me) said that they were part of a guild that had hit the hard cap on members, and now was having to pick and choose who to boot in order to allow in different accounts. (Question - is it a 1000 account cap or is it a 1000 character cap?)

Oh my god! You don't even understand how the current game mechanics work for large guilds but you want to plan for their future mechanics? Wow! Just wow!

[UurlockYgmeov]

You don't even understand how the current game mechanics work for large guilds but you want to plan for their future mechanics? Wow! Just wow!

I understand and the question of is it max account/or characters. I have always heard accounts.

There is nothing in wiki or compendium (that I can find or google) that states this - so the only way to know for sure is experience with a guild that has hit its cap.

So do you know? If so - please link the reference for me. Ok - so since you gave me reason I squelched you again. So somebody else kindly link the reference or pm it. TYIA

[UurlockYgmeov]

More delicious irony from the guy who's plan discriminates against casual and social players and any guilds that are willing to accept them as members.

I am done with your sarcasm and twisting my words.

/squelch (again)

[Auralana7214]

More delicious irony from the guy who's plan discriminates against casual and social players and any guilds that are willing to accept them as members.

Yeah, I'm soooo done. GLHF.

[Tshober]

I understand and the question of is it max account/or characters. I have always heard accounts.

There is nothing in wiki or compendium (that I can find or google) that states this - so the only way to know for sure is experience with a guild that has hit its cap.

So do you know? If so - please link the reference for me.

Of course I know because I actually have experience in leading a large guild, which it is painfully obvious that you lack.

I'm sorry but it is now obvious that you are not qualified to plan for the future of DDO's guilds. You don't even know how they work currently. In addition to not knowing how large guilds work, you were claiming that the current decay system doubled the decay for small guilds, until I pointed out that you were completely incorrect. You claimed that was just a simple math error, but anyone with a lot of experience running a small guild and dealing with daily decay would have known that was untrue, without having to even do any math. And even if you had no experience dealing with decay, anyone who had read and understood the comments the devs have made in this thread would have known that was incorrect. Please do some more research and get a MUCH better understanding of how the current system works before you start trying to re-design it.

Ugh, what a waste of time this has been.

[eris2323]

If you don't understand the system, why are you trying to re-design it?

And I want to say something about Godwins Law, too.... but I'll stop now.

You need to learn the system you are trying to modify, and get some experience with large guild mechanics, before you are even close to qualifying to be able to make uch sweeping changes to the system.

And I'm not really in the teaching mood; it is easy to research the issue, please do so before you come back.

[eris2323]

I am done with your sarcasm and twisting my words.

/squelch (again)

I assure you, I agree with him totally; he is not twisting your words nor being sarcastic.

Your plan DOES penalize casual and social guilds; and you are unqualified to decide the fate of all DDO guilds, as you don't even understand the mechanics of the system you have been fighting against for the last week.

[Tychagara]

Now to compare the first three by dividing the decay by the member count:

Again - kindly verify data - since these are drafts:

Old System:
Temporary System:
System 'A'

Nice. Great work! +1

Can clearly see how this is broken like the last one. System A is slightly better. Might want to go from 1 to 20 instead of 2 to 20.

Keep it up! Thanks from all of us in guilds that aren't huge! We've got your back!

[Tychagara]

in a game you have left all civil discourse behind and moved to another country from where it lives.

obviously irony and sarcasm escape you.

any mode of favoritism is bad.

obviously those who benefit will always resist change, and often try to disuade others from change through any means possible.

[Tychagara]

The original idea some time back was going along more moderate lines actually. The orignal idea was to give decay any purpose.

So no decay for any active guild regardless of size and level as long as any member logs in any time before going inactive. So only truely inactive guilds would get the decay. Inactivity in the original idea would have followed the 1-month policy for accounts.

In the original idea, a guild would loose a certain ammount of decay equaling 1/12th of total renown before going inactive. So the guild would need one year to reach exactly zero renown. Upon reaching zero renown after one full year of inactivity the guild would be officially dissolved and would not eat up resources on the server, from repopulating ships to being the last guild on the leaderboards.

Of course the guild would only be marked "dissolved" and the regular scripts would not repopulate the guild on the server. Upon any former account from that guild entering the game again, there could be a script safeguard reopening the guild with whatever status the DEVs would deem right for a guild nobody had cared about for at least one year.

But then again, this was proposed when there was the big discussion about decay in general when even the great guilds did battle the decay system.

i like.

[Tychagara]

IMO Decay is a strategic thing - it has to have substance and teeth (just not with nasty, big, pointy teeth... MPATHG). Decay should be a factor, a game mechanic and should promote activity and log-ins.

Decay is what you pay the mistrals to herald your epic heroic brave deeds to the masses and what pays the captain to drive the ship, feeds the elemental engines, and keeps the deck scrubbed from all the creature companions without diapers. :P

like membership dues to feed the piper. makes sense.

[Charononus]

obviously irony and sarcasm escape you.

any mode of favoritism is bad.

obviously those who benefit will always resist change, and often try to disuade others from change through any means possible.

While his post wasn't nazi's it was comparing game systems to mass murder, and as such falls under godwin's law imo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

When you make such a ridiculous (and that is the politest way I can think of stating it) statement, you have lost the debate and reduced any credibility you may have had before to zero.