Guild Renown Changes

[Gremmlynn]

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.

Well other than removing decay completely, I can't think of a way of making it impossible for those who insist on looking at it as decay/account to not do so. Simply because as long as there is an amount of decay and there is a number of accounts it will be impossible for someone not to be able to compare the two values, regardless how irrelevant the result (as it is now).

Better to simply tweak the current system so it's something everyone can live with than to change it into something those who currently feel put out like at the expense of putting others out.

Throw some decay relief at the smaller guilds, whether it be 12-20, 2-10, 2-20, or whatever the values the devs who actually have the ability to do something about it choose and call it a day. Trying to find a perfect system in an imperfect universe that satisfies the diverse wants of all the imperfect beings that will be affected by it is an exercise in futility.

I read the humorous anecdote at the end of your proposal. Interesting thought, but I just don't see how it is a good idea for the devs to implement anything that even approximates it.

[Gremmlynn]

In regard of guilds being able to go back into obscurity, there was one solution proposed by quite a lot of players to formulate a hefty decay penalty for guilds that went completely inactive (no log in of any member within a month) until they finally dissolve automatically after a given period of time.

This easy-to-implement (a few simple SQL statements would suffice) solution would work fine for all active guilds, would as well help clean up the servers from the garbage guilds and would fullfill the one and only function of decay we could think off: Weed out the inactive.

I don't even see the point in this. If a guild is totally inactive it has zero effect on the game, so what need to "weed it out"?

Why waste time developing code that fulfills no purpose in the game?

[Gremmlynn]

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.

Again. If nobody from a guild logs in, how is that guild in any way "in the game"? So really, what need to do anything about them?

I really don't understand how anyone see's this as a problem that is in need of a solution.

[Arnez]

Soooooo many posts and ideas in this topic.

Perhaps it's time to think outside the box and in the hearts (i.e. standing orders) of the Devs and give them good (i.e. monetary) ideas for making the Removal of Guild Decay profitable.

I would guess that the MAIN reason that "they" would not want to remove guild decay is due to the DDO store. After all- they have real data on the sheer number of Guild Potions being sold and it's effect on their bottom line.

In my small 10 person guild, we often suggest it- especially when someone can pull a Legendary Victory.

Perhaps we need an alternative. IF they were to remove decay, they need a way for guilds to keep buying things from the DDO store. Perhaps better Amenities? Especially for higher level guilds- or.... more hook points (as a store bought item?).
Not gonna lie- I'd spend more in the store getting amenities if I didn't waste it getting guild potions.
Heck- I'd even buy more hook points if it were available in the store.

[Tshober]

If they got rid of decay, they could close this thread....

IMAGINE THE FREEDOM

Say it with me folks, down with decay for everyone, we are not a number, we are people turbine!

Down with decay!!!

We are not tooth enamel! We are imaginary characters! Set us free!!

[Gremmlynn]

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.

Here is the problem. Decay used that way can end up sinking it's teeth into it's maker by causing players to not play this game more, but play some other game that better fit's their play habits. In many cases how often one plays isn't a matter of choice, so it wouldn't even be a matter of play habits as simply not having the time the game requires. In either case it leads to a lower customer base for Turbine.

Maybe Turbine's demographic numbers show that it's customer base has a lot of free time with little else of merit to fill it. In which case this sort of mechanic might be a good idea. But it still alienates everyone else from the game.

[Tshober]

Again. If nobody from a guild logs in, how is that guild in any way "in the game"? So really, what need to do anything about them?

I really don't understand how anyone see's this as a problem that is in need of a solution.

I agree it is low priority. But our friend who keeps re-posting his misguided proposal has made it a feature of his plan that guilds will "decay away" and the original proposal of this idea was to demonstrate that this could be better accomplished with a separate system that gets rid of dead guilds.

As far as why to get rid of dead guilds at all, the main advantage of that is it would make the statistics about how many tiny and small guilds there are more realistic. It is my belief that many, many tiny and small guilds are really just dead and dying guilds and not real guilds at all. It would also reduce the overhead that DDO incurs for calculating decay on all those dead guilds each day. Neither of these is high priority.

[Gremmlynn]

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!

2-20 as that follows the devs example of basing guild size on an optimal minimum of 6. Also, what the exact numbers end up being if the devs choose to follow any plan are completely up to them. So trying to refine things lacking their data or perspective is nothing more than a pointless mental exercise. In the end, the numbers will be whatever they choose.

Besides, any system that uses a base of one means that in any guild larger than that, barring the unlikely event of everyone pulling the same amount of renown, someone would be better off going it alone, rather than having their renown lowered by having it averaged with that of those who earn less. Can't see much point in a guild system that mechanically favors one player guilds.

[Gremmlynn]

any mode of favoritism is bad.

I disagree. Just like showing favoritism to subscribers (even in calling them VIPs) is good from the game. Showing favoritism towards guilds that are open to the least invested and least socially connected players is also good for the game.

For some of you a guild seems to be a competition or virtual accomplishment. For others, it's primary purpose is as a place to find reliable people to play with. It's kind of hard to accomplish that for casual players if the only one's willing to play with them are those who play as infrequently as they do.

So yeah, I'm all for giving guilds a mechanical incentive to let active players tag along as their active members strive for those virtual accomplishments. It keeps servers populated and budgets approved.

[Gremmlynn]

thank you. change it to 1-20 or leave it 2-20?

size bonuses will take me a moment but will do.

2-20. Not that it matters as the devs, if they do anything even resembling to the proposal, are likely to set values wherever they like. But it fit's with the 6 member size bonus apex they gave us.

[Gremmlynn]

how smart players may or may not be is not the point. The system needs to be fair for all or it isn't fair.

If they want to pay for everything (charter, ship, amenities, etc) all on their own they are also entitled to a fair system.

What does "fair" have to do with anything? Realistically viable would be a better target as it's much more likely to even be possible with the number of variables we have when it comes to guilds. Making the system fair to guilds of all sizes assumes a degree of uniformity amongst players that simply doesn't exist. Making it realistic for a guild with any number of reasonably active players to succeed seems a much better idea. Allowing the less than reasonably active players to ride along for free seems the best way to not allow the system from inconveniencing their game play, likely it would enhance it so adds more value to the system.

[eris2323]

2-20 as that follows the devs example of basing guild size on an optimal minimum of 6. Also, what the exact numbers end up being if the devs choose to follow any plan are completely up to them. So trying to refine things lacking their data or perspective is nothing more than a pointless mental exercise. In the end, the numbers will be whatever they choose.

Besides, any system that uses a base of one means that in any guild larger than that, barring the unlikely event of everyone pulling the same amount of renown, someone would be better off going it alone, rather than having their renown lowered by having it averaged with that of those who earn less. Can't see much point in a guild system that mechanically favors one player guilds.

You know, that last part is a very good point; I hadn't thought of that.

The only thing I can think to counter it is 'don't change the amount of renown needed per level' - because then, yes, they can choose to make the 80 bazillion renown required solo, or go at it with a team, if that is too slow.

Change the decay; sure. But perhaps the multiplier shouldn't be lowered too much anyways - perhaps it should be a range of 6-20 for the decay modifier; but I am not sure I agree with it being a straight '1' anymore.

But if the system swings to far in favor of solo guilds, large guilds will again suffer; everyone wants to be the king, and with a system that favors solo guilds, everyone WILL be king.

I'm also with you on the 'inactive guilds don't need to be culled' theory. I think that's a stupid idea as well - and if no one from the guild is online, then what resources is that guild really using? Don't steal someones hard earned guild away from them, simply because they are not playing often enough for some of the hardcore power gamers; they don't get to choose how to play my game.

I choose how to play my game; and I choose which game I'll be playing. Ruin the system so that it harms how I like to play the game, I'll go elsewhere.

And so will many others.

As for making money - well, Turbine is kinda missing out here.

Everyone wants to be king, and they sell guild charters for a stupidly cheap price. I believe the price of guilds themselves should be raised to a more respectable amount. If they are 150 now (yeah, it's been too long, I can't recall), they should be more in line with the cost of the best adventure packs.

Perhaps 600-1000 turbine points each.

[Tshober]

Besides, any system that uses a base of one means that in any guild larger than that, barring the unlikely event of everyone pulling the same amount of renown, someone would be better off going it alone, rather than having their renown lowered by having it averaged with that of those who earn less. Can't see much point in a guild system that mechanically favors one player guilds.

Yes, this is my main problem with those who want to treat all guilds exactly equally, even solo guilds. It means that banding together to work in cooperation is completely pointless as far as leveling up your guild. Everyone might as well just go it solo. There is no incentive at all in such a system to work together. All of the incentive is to go it alone in isolation. This is, IMO, unhealthy for any MMO. There should be advantages to banding together with your fellow players to accomplish things.

[Tshober]

As for making money - well, Turbine is kinda missing out here.

Everyone wants to be king, and they sell guild charters for a stupidly cheap price. I believe the price of guilds themselves should be raised to a more respectable amount. If they are 150 now (yeah, it's been too long, I can't recall), they should be more in line with the cost of the best adventure packs.

Perhaps 600-1000 turbine points each.

I disagree with you on the need to keep dead guilds around forever, but I completely agree that the cost of a guild charter should be higher. However, making them cost high TP puts them out of reach of most F2P players so I would say make them cost either 500+ TP OR 1 million plus plat. That way F2P players can also be guild leaders of they work at it some.

[eris2323]

I disagree with you on the need to keep dead guilds around forever, but I completely agree that the cost of a guild charter should be higher. However, making them cost high TP puts them out of reach of most F2P players so I would say make them cost either 500+ TP OR 1 million plus plat. That way F2P players can also be guild leaders of they work at it some.

Well - here's a thought.

Make those guilds 'inactive' - so they aren't losing anything, and also don't show up on the leaderboards at all.

But the instant someone logs back in, the guild is back. It could be at level 25, because of decay, but it'll be back, and the owner hasn't lost their money that they used to buy a ship.

But tell me 'if you don't play enough, you'll lose your guild and ship'. I'm out. I'm not going to let some game company choose my amount of playtime, this is a game, not a full time job. Pay me, if you want that. I'm not going to let a company STEAL my money if I buy something but don't play their game enough to meet their standards. Ever.

As for cost...

A F2P player can make that much free turbine points - but then again, those f2p people who never pay are the ones who usually quit the game fairly quick. Someone who has put real money into the system is more likely to stick around a little longer.

Right now you can game the system and farm renown on the 6 (?) servers and get a free guild in less than a week (probably more like a day), then off you wander to a game you like more.

But really in the end, that's a personal view. I think turbine is stupidly missing out on more profit, if the game is in such desperate need of cash flow, then they need to look at what sells.

And seems to me, everyone wants to be king

(and really, don't care THAT much, it's their company - if they didn't change the price, no skin off my back)

[Gremmlynn]

Change the decay; sure. But perhaps the multiplier shouldn't be lowered too much anyways - perhaps it should be a range of 6-20 for the decay modifier; but I am not sure I agree with it being a straight '1' anymore.

Well the reason I went with 2 for a minimum is because the formula divides by 3. So a minimum of 6 would put all guilds of 20 or less at the modified minimum level, which wouldn't be the sort of tiny guild relief people seem to be looking for. At 2 it puts all guilds of 8 or less at the modified minimum.

[Gremmlynn]

Well - here's a thought.

Make those guilds 'inactive' - so they aren't losing anything, and also don't show up on the leaderboards at all.

But the instant someone logs back in, the guild is back. It could be at level 25, because of decay, but it'll be back, and the owner hasn't lost their money that they used to buy a ship.

But tell me 'if you don't play enough, you'll lose your guild and ship'. I'm out. I'm not going to let some game company choose my amount of playtime, this is a game, not a full time job. Pay me, if you want that. I'm not going to let a company STEAL my money if I buy something but don't play their game enough to meet their standards. Ever.

As for cost...

A F2P player can make that much free turbine points - but then again, those f2p people who never pay are the ones who usually quit the game fairly quick. Someone who has put real money into the system is more likely to stick around a little longer.

Right now you can game the system and farm renown on the 6 (?) servers and get a free guild in less than a week (probably more like a day), then off you wander to a game you like more.

But really in the end, that's a personal view. I think turbine is stupidly missing out on more profit, if the game is in such desperate need of cash flow, then they need to look at what sells.

And seems to me, everyone wants to be king

(and really, don't care THAT much, it's their company - if they didn't change the price, no skin off my back)

I agree. Also I think people are exaggerating the problems these inactive guilds cause. I doubt they populate any guildship until a player actually boards one. The long populating issue after an update is more likely due to many players all boarding ships at the same time when the servers go back up, as well as entering many other instances with higher priority. As for the leader boards, a simple inactive icon should be good enough.

As for cost. All raising the price would do is practically stop sales as guild charters are VIP perks. Instead of paying a reasonable rate for one, players will be using the "have a subscriber form the guild and transfer leadership" work around that already exists. I don't see the perk being eliminated or limits being placed on transferring leadership, likely would cause more angst that it's worth to do either.

[Tshober]

I agree. Also I think people are exaggerating the problems these inactive guilds cause.

I think we all agree that doing anything about dead guilds is very low priority. The important thing is settling the renown & decay issues.

[Arnez]

But tell me 'if you don't play enough, you'll lose your guild and ship'. I'm out. I'm not going to let some game company choose my amount of playtime, this is a game, not a full time job. Pay me, if you want that. I'm not going to let a company STEAL my money if I buy something but don't play their game enough to meet their standards. Ever.

THIS.

I may not see eye to eye with you on large guilds vs (we) small guilds, but take my ship that I paid Real $ for (and coerced my few friends into buying lots of renown potions to reach 55) and I'm OUT.
Heck- I can get a free base in DCUO without worrying I'll lose it due to decay.

We may only be able to do 1-3 quests per night, but don't penalize us for being casual.

(as an aside- it's sad that people regard 2-3 hours PER NIGHT as casual)

[Tshober]

(as an aside- it's sad that people regard 2-3 hours PER NIGHT as casual)

I agree with the aside.

But to elaborate a bit further:

If you play for a few hours per week, you are a casual player.

If you play for a few hours per month, you are a very casual player.

However, if you have not logged in at all for months, you are not an extremely causal player. You are not a player at all. You have left the game. You might return to the game someday and once again become a player. But for now you are not a player at all.