Guild Renown Changes

[eris2323]

Since the change, the largest guild "Legends of Orien" on Orien, has already gone from lvl60(they'd been lvl60 for years) to lvl90 now, and there's no more individual effort. In other words, everyone in the guild just plays casually as always, to get the guild to eventual lvl100.

It sounds like you are very bitter and angry towards a group of people who are finally able to enjoy their game.

I for one, am very glad, that this guild who has spent so long stuck is now finally able to move forward, and I am very happy for all of the people in the guild.

Congrats, guys!

Not levelling fast enough? Consider recruiting! It'll do wonders, in this multiplayer online game!

[Gremmlynn]

I am not a fan of making it easy for solo guilds to reach level 100. That would make working together pointless. If I had to make the decision on where to draw the line I would probably do something like the 99.9th percentile of non-dead guilds ranked by renown earned. I don't have the data to do that so I will have to defer to the devs, who are going to do what they want anyway.

Also, I do not advocate any kind of "auto leveling" mechanism. I think that would also make it less attractive to work together with other players. I am a big fan of rewarding players for banding together with their fellow players to accomplish long term goals in all MMO's, not just DDO.

I agree. That's why I would set the benchmark around 6 (the number the devs seem to favor) rather active players. This seems reasonable for everyone. As even an all casual guild that simply has enough mass to reach that benchmark of man/hours played adjusted by any size bonus or lack there of, will be able to reach the level cap in the designated time. I just see setting the benchmark to low, say 6 rather casual players, would either be little different than an auto level system for larger or more active guilds or necessitate a size bonus large enough to cause active players to shun casual players as the bonus would outweigh any benefits they would gain from guilding with them. Which, IMO, causes more harm to the game than an "unfair" guild level system.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Disagree.

Discriminating against a guild because of its size (large or small) is just wrong.

[Gremmlynn]

Disagree.

Discriminating against a guild because of its size (large or small) is just wrong.

Actually it would be discriminating against it due to a lack of total activity level.

[Nestroy]

I think I will go back to the fundamentals again...


1.) We all agree there has to be some kind of organized groups on the servers that we now call guilds. I think that is one of the only things we do not need a discussion.

2.) We all agree that there has to be some sort of efficient management tools for these guilds, like management structures, roosters and statistics on membership. On what tools we want for managing the guild we have to discuss.

3.) We all agree that there should be certain ammenities and certain benefits comming along with the groups called guilds. On which ammenities this could be we have to discuss.

4.) We all agree that there should be low entry barriers to form such a group. Which kind of entry barriers we could discuss - but the current guild charter system works fine, as far as the discussions in here have shown.

5.) We all agree that there should be a wide bandwidth of sizes for the groups, from only a handful of members to several hundret or even 1,000 members. On the exact guild sizes there is only a minor discussion in here - but we could try to find out if 1 member to 1,000 members is the best solution.

6.) We all agree that somehow Turbine has to raise the money to provide DDO. The alternative simply would be no DDO. We cannot ignore the fact that Turbine needs the guild system to make money. Therefore, when discussing any changes, we need to include options for Turbine to profit.

7.) We all agree that renown and renown decay is a disputable concept. Well, finding any formula that benefits all will be hard to agree upon, especially when counting in the need to make money for Turbine.

8.) We all agree that most benfits should eventually go to those that are actively playing, casual or power gamers alike. There seems to be a general consensus here that once archieved benefits should not go away even if these groups called guilds go inactive. But even this was already contested in here.

I think we can build on this. Please feel free to add. Of course the general directions and strategic views of our appreciated DEVs would be most welcome for further discussion.

[UurlockYgmeov]

Actually it would be discriminating against it due to a lack of total activity level.

activity level vs size is two separate concepts.

However, now that you mention it:

should not discriminate against an guild due to size (from one to max)

AND

should not discriminate against a guild due to activity (from on vacation / deployed to playing the game through multiboxing 12 hours a day)

[UurlockYgmeov]

I think I will go back to the fundamentals again...


1.) We all agree there has to be some kind of organized groups on the servers that we now call guilds. I think that is one of the only things we do not need a discussion.

2.) We all agree that there has to be some sort of efficient management tools for these guilds, like management structures, roosters and statistics on membership. On what tools we want for managing the guild we have to discuss.

3.) We all agree that there should be certain ammenities and certain benefits comming along with the groups called guilds. On which ammenities this could be we have to discuss.

4.) We all agree that there should be low entry barriers to form such a group. Which kind of entry barriers we could discuss - but the current guild charter system works fine, as far as the discussions in here have shown.

5.) We all agree that there should be a wide bandwidth of sizes for the groups, from only a handful of members to several hundret or even 1,000 members. On the exact guild sizes there is only a minor discussion in here - but we could try to find out if 1 member to 1,000 members is the best solution.

6.) We all agree that somehow Turbine has to raise the money to provide DDO. The alternative simply would be no DDO. We cannot ignore the fact that Turbine needs the guild system to make money. Therefore, when discussing any changes, we need to include options for Turbine to profit.

7.) We all agree that renown and renown decay is a disputable concept. Well, finding any formula that benefits all will be hard to agree upon, especially when counting in the need to make money for Turbine.

8.) We all agree that most benfits should eventually go to those that are actively playing, casual or power gamers alike. There seems to be a general consensus here that once archieved benefits should not go away even if these groups called guilds go inactive. But even this was already contested in here.

I think we can build on this. Please feel free to add. Of course the general directions and strategic views of our appreciated DEVs would be most welcome for further discussion.

I mostly agree, except that if we are concerned with profits, then the guild system will be P2W - and that is as bad for Turbine as it is for the players.

Design the system for F2P (except charters) and Turbine will find ways to profit. Basic capitalism 101 - law of supply and demand. If the system is popular - then there will be a demand for items that profit the company. If the system is designed first to be profitable for the company - that will be at the expense of the players.

Please don't misunderstand - yes, Turbine needs to be profitable in order to continue to evolve this game - in order to just remain operational. However, the natural order of business is that 'if you build it they will come' - make it enjoyable and Turbine will find a way to profit from it. That is the core concept of F2P games.

As for what was said about size - Guild's need self determination - the ability to decide what is best for them and their members as far as size, style, mission, values, etc (as long as it doesn't violate the EULA). That means allowing for the greatest possible choices - from 1 to 1000, etc.

And yes - further input from Dev's is always welcome. Even if it is just an invitation only thread.

I do believe that if we establish the fundamentals - that it will be fun and profitable.

[Dandonk]

So, another month has gone by with no word from Turbine.

What can we say at this point that has not been said a thousand times over in this thread? We argued with Turbine's own guild goals, we have argued with statistics, we have argued with fairness - but Turbine is still ignoring us.

I think we can, at this point, safely say that finding an equitable guild decay system for all guild sizes is somewhere below making a daily dice system in priority, and below messing up the collectable system. We, as small guilds, simply do not matter to Turbine. Why this is, I have no clue - we are a sizeable portion of the player base.

We don't want to promote any particular guild size.

That easy to say, Vargouille - but the current system very much favors one size of guild over another. And has done for months. When can we expect a system that does what you say you want it to? This spring? This summer for expansion ("Rise of the Fair Guild System! Yes, you are once again wanted if you are in a small guild - buy the expansion pack now!")?

Or do you care so little about small guilds that you will, once again (and still), say nothing at all?

[Tychagara]

I'm not at all interested in:

A guild needs to be able to gauge itself against other guilds on the same server and game wide

At all.

Really don't care how other guilds are doing, this is not a PVP game, and I like it that way

editted to add: perhaps people won't complain about the advancement of their guilds if there are no guild leaderboards to get jealous about other guilds with

Just because YOU aren't interested doesn't mean that others aren't as well. It is human nature to be curious and compare.

PVP? Well, it is there and there are many that do PVP.

Uurlock - when are you posting the final charts and graphs? You've been very quiet lately.

There will always be contention about the speed of advancement. However, in the absence of fact and real statistics there will only be angry speculation.

Also - I see Uurlock's point about guild advancement is proportional - the more members, and the more active those members are the faster it will gain renow.

[Tshober]

Just because YOU aren't interested doesn't mean that others aren't as well. It is human nature to be curious and compare.

The stated goal was to reach concensus. Four people have already posted that they don't care at all about what other guilds are doing and don't want guilds to be a competition. Only you and UUR have supported the competition statement. When 2 agree and 4 disagree, that means there is NO consensus.

Several of his other statements are poorly defined and so I can't agree with them either.

[Tshober]

I think we can, at this point, safely say that finding an equitable guild decay system for all guild sizes is somewhere below making a daily dice system in priority, and below messing up the collectable system. We, as small guilds, simply do not matter to Turbine. Why this is, I have no clue - we are a sizeable portion of the player base.

I also wish the devs would make a decision. I do not envy them that decision because, IMO, it is not really possible to design a system that makes all guild sizes equal and also promotes inclusiveness. Nor is that a desirable goal. I do believe that all guild sizes should be viable and should be able to advance and eventually reach the highest levels. But making all guild sizes equal is saying that working together with other players toward a common goal is useless. In such a system, everyone might as well just go it alone in isolation. I believe that is unhealthy for the game overall.

Think about it. Is it reasonable to argue that a solo guy with a few fake accounts should be treated exactly the same as a group of 300 players all working together toward a common goal? And if you do treat those both the same, where is the incentive to do anything other than go it alone? Are you really being fair to the group of 300 people who chose to band together to help each other if you tell them they, as a whole, are no different at all from a random solo dude? I don't think you can reasonably treat such vastly different guilds equally.

I do believe, however, that the current system could and should be greatly improved for small guilds. But not at the expense of alienating casual and social players by going back to a system where they earn less renown than they cost in decay. In other words, not at the expense of going back to a system that encourages and rewards exclusiveness.

[Dandonk]

I also wish the devs would make a decision. I do not envy them that decision because, IMO, it is not really possible to design a system that makes all guild sizes equal and also promotes inclusiveness. Nor is that a desirable goal. I do believe that all guild sizes should be viable and should be able to advance and eventually reach the highest levels. But making all guild sizes equal is saying that working together with other players toward a common goal is useless. In such a system, everyone might as well just go it alone in isolation. I believe that is unhealthy for the game overall.

Think about it. Is it reasonable to argue that a solo guy with a few fake accounts should be treated exactly the same as a group of 300 players all working together toward a common goal? And if you do treat those both the same, where is the incentive to do anything other than go it alone? Are you really being fair to the group of 300 people who chose to band together to help each other if you tell them they, as a whole, are no different at all from a random solo dude? I don't think you can reasonably treat such vastly different guilds equally.

I do believe, however, that the current system could and should be greatly improved for small guilds. But not at the expense of alienating casual and social players by going back to a system where they earn less renown than they cost in decay. In other words, not at the expense of going back to a system that encourages and rewards exclusiveness.

I'm just quoting Turbine's own words back at them.

I do not think we will ever see eye to eye on the issue of small guilds vs. large guilds, but if Turbine does not really mean what they say (that they do not want to promote one guild size over another), I will settle for a system that makes sure that all guilds can eventually reach the same levels - even if it does take smal guilds longer.

I want this game to be inclusive. This means that kicking players for renown reasons is bad, and should never have to happen.
But inclusiveness also means that different players and play styles and guild sizes should be supported. If we do not have that, it's not inclusiveness. Right now, we have an exclusive system - albeit exclusive for other people than before.

I do not get why that is OK. Much less why it's OK for it to be the case for months on end... or rather, without end.

I do not want any new system to hurt large guilds. But I do not want small guilds to keep hurting, either. I don't think it should have to be one or the other.

[Gremmlynn]

activity level vs size is two separate concepts.

However, now that you mention it:

should not discriminate against an guild due to size (from one to max)

AND

should not discriminate against a guild due to activity (from on vacation / deployed to playing the game through multiboxing 12 hours a day)

So you're a proponent of the "give every guild an automatic renown stipend instead of decay" concept I mentioned. I guess I was wrong about the ideas popularity. So how many days of zero activity do you suggest level 100 should take?

Personally I'm a believer in either be active or in a guild in which others are active to succeed at the leveling gimmick. But I'm open to an everybody wins scheme as it doesn't interfere with guilds being what they were before the whole guild level nonsense was introduced.

[eris2323]

I'm just quoting Turbine's own words back at them.

I do not think we will ever see eye to eye on the issue of small guilds vs. large guilds, but if Turbine does not really mean what they say (that they do not want to promote one guild size over another), I will settle for a system that makes sure that all guilds can eventually reach the same levels - even if it does take smal guilds longer.

I want this game to be inclusive. This means that kicking players for renown reasons is bad, and should never have to happen.
But inclusiveness also means that different players and play styles and guild sizes should be supported. If we do not have that, it's not inclusiveness. Right now, we have an exclusive system - albeit exclusive for other people than before.

I do not get why that is OK. Much less why it's OK for it to be the case for months on end... or rather, without end.

I do not want any new system to hurt large guilds. But I do not want small guilds to keep hurting, either. I don't think it should have to be one or the other.

The old system was 'okay' to the devs for years, even though it was destroying the game.

We're lucky a few people started campaigns to change from the garbage system it was before.

The vast majority of people got a break with the new system - and you all want to force them to 'hurry up and fix guilds'?

Seems to me they never cared about guilds. Ever.

Remember, at one point there was supposed to be the ability for leaders to make new 'levels' in the guilds, vs just 'leader/officer/member'? Ever see that materialize?

No. We did not.

We barely got a change to the system, after begging for it.

Seems to me they never ever cared about guilds, and still don't - their money must be coming from somewhere else (astral shards, anyone, with a side order of a new auction house?)

Old system:

All large guilds penalized; small guilds got the benefits. No way for a large guild to compete without deleting people.

New System:

All guilds over a certain size got a break - and small guilds didn't change from the old rules - and the added bonus that any small guild who was not happy DID have a way to fix the problem without deleting people. They simply have to add people.

At least you have a choice. Just because you don't WANT to recruit, doesn't mean the choice isn't there.

One system awarded deleting people from the guild. One system awards recruiting and helping new players find a home.

Guess which one I prefer for the state of the game as a whole.

In "DDO time" - the time since the changes went into effect is nothing. We've barely had time to enjoy it, after suffering for years.

[Dandonk]

All guilds over a certain size got a break - and small guilds didn't change from the old rules - and the added bonus that any small guild who was not happy DID have a way to fix the problem without deleting people. They simply have to add people.

At least you have a choice. Just because you don't WANT to recruit, doesn't mean the choice isn't there.

In "DDO time" - the time since the changes went into effect is nothing. We've barely had time to enjoy it, after suffering for years.

Sorry, I do not appreciate you, or the system, telling me how to organize my guild. That was wrong before, an it is wrong now.

And small guilds are worse off now, compared to before. No, renown decay did not change - but the ransack did.

I'm sorry you had to hard a time before. Truly, I am. But I do not feel this is grounds for making other people miserable now.

[Gremmlynn]

Just because YOU aren't interested doesn't mean that others aren't as well. It is human nature to be curious and compare.

PVP? Well, it is there and there are many that do PVP.

If that's the case then just like PvP guilds should have to actively opt in if they want to participate in this comparison.

[eris2323]

Sorry, I do not appreciate you, or the system, telling me how to organize my guild. That was wrong before, an it is wrong now.

And small guilds are worse off now, compared to before. No, renown decay did not change - but the ransack did.

I'm sorry you had to hard a time before. Truly, I am. But I do not feel this is grounds for making other people miserable now.

I'm not telling you how to run your guild, I'm telling you to enjoy the CHOICE you as a leader have to make; you can choose to run a small guild, or you can choose to recruit more people.

At least you are not 'choosing' - or having it forced on you - to destroy people from your guild.

I'm sorry if 'ransack' changed, and you can no longer gain multiple levels per day. Better get used to it though, as you gain levels, you will no longer worry about ransack, because you will not be gaining multiple levels per day

[Dandonk]

I'm not telling you how to run your guild, I'm telling you to enjoy the CHOICE you as a leader have to make; you can choose to run a small guild, or you can choose to recruit more people.

At least you are not 'choosing' - or having it forced on you - to destroy people from your guild.

I'm sorry if 'ransack' changed, and you can no longer gain multiple levels per day. Better get used to it though, as you gain levels, you will no longer worry about ransack, because you will not be gaining multiple levels per day

But you are. You are telling to either suck it, or to recruit. That's telling me how to run my guild. I would appreciate it if neither you, nor the guild system, did that. Thank you.

Inclusiveness is not inclusiveness if it only pertains to people who play in large guilds. Then it is exclusiveness. Which, I think we all agreed, is bad.

Ransack kicks in after the FIRST level gained. It always did, but the reduction in renown is higher now. Any small guild who ever gains a level is hit by this new and higher penalty.

[eris2323]

If that's the case then just like PvP guilds should have to actively opt in if they want to participate in this comparison.

I agree - to me, these guild leaderboards cause nothing but trouble, and I would like that system to be opt-in.

There is too much jealousy from tiny guilds who see a large guild gaining level.

I mean, seriously. When there's 30-40 people logging into our guild every day, playing.... of course we're going to gain levels.

If you have 1-3 people logging into your guild.... I can see why you'd have problems. But that's no reason to get all jealous - it's a fact of life, we're MUCH more active in the game, we do things for our guild like plan guild events weekly, make message boards, and do other things to help our guild and make it more attractive to others - leading to more people joining, and more people being happy.

And then some just wanna play a solo guild and level like the big-guys, just because they think they should...

I disagree And my 200+ members opinions vs your 1-3... well as spock would say... the needs of the many.... outweigh... the needs of the few. Or the one.

[eris2323]

But you are. You are telling to either suck it, or to recruit. That's telling me how to run my guild. I would appreciate it if neither you, nor the guild system, did that. Thank you.

Inclusiveness is not inclusiveness if it only pertains to people who play in large guilds. Then it is exclusiveness. Which, I think we all agreed, is bad.

Ransack kicks in after the FIRST level gained. It always did, but the reduction in renown is higher now. Any small guild who ever gains a level is hit by this new and higher penalty.

Yelling at the devs to hurry up and fix things - well, we've seen how well that works

I've never had to deal with ransack. I've just had to deal with the cost of casual players outweighing the renown gained per day, and having our guild stuck at lower levels simply because we allow casual players.

There was no way to fix that. You have a way to fix your problem - you just refuse to use it, because you demand that you should be able to play the game 'your way'. And that's fine. But I don't think you should expect the same treatment as 200+ people, simply because YOU WANT!